The House v. Mayes case in 1910 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and the validity of tax titles. The plaintiff, House, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property at a tax sale after it was seized for unpaid taxes by Jackson County, Missouri. However, the defendant, Mayes (the marshal), argued that the county's seizure and subsequent sale were invalid because they violated due process rights under both state law and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution as proper notice wasn't given to delinquent taxpayers before their properties were sold off. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mayes stating that while states have broad powers to collect taxes through property seizures and sales; these actions must still comply with constitutional requirements for due process which include providing adequate notice prior to such proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for House v. Mayes, the justice argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case as it pertained to due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The justice contended that a state has full authority to determine its own procedural rules and regulations regarding court proceedings within its jurisdiction, including those related to appeals processes. In this particular case, Missouri's decision not to allow an appeal from a county probate court directly to the Supreme Court did not infrally upon any federal right or protection granted by the Constitution. Therefore, according to this view, there should have been no grounds for intervention by the U.S Supreme Court in what is essentially a matter of state law and procedure.