The Hovey v. Elliott case in 1896 revolved around the issue of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Hovey, had obtained a judgment against Elliott and sought to collect by seizing his property located in another state. However, this was done without giving Elliot any notice or opportunity for hearing before depriving him of his property rights - an action that Elliot argued violated his right to due process. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Elliott, holding that while states have broad powers to establish procedures for civil litigation involving parties within their jurisdiction, they cannot infrally upon fundamental principles which are part of due process law as protected by the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. This includes providing adequate notice and opportunity for hearing before one is deprived off their property rights. This ruling established important precedent regarding procedural requirements under Due Process Clause – specifically emphasizing on necessity for proper notification and fair hearing prior to deprivation of individual’s property.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hovey v. Elliott argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power, infringing upon states' rights to manage their own legal procedures and processes. The justices contended that Massachusetts law allowed for a debtor's property to be seized before trial if there was reason to believe they might dispose of it dishonestly. They believed this did not violate due process as long as the defendant had notice and opportunity for hearing either before or after such seizure, which Mr. Elliott had received according to state laws at that time. Furthermore, they maintained that federal courts should respect these state rules unless they clearly violated constitutional principles - something which, in their view, wasn't evident here.