In the Howard v. Detroit Stove Works case of 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Detroit Stove Works. The dispute arose when Howard accused Detroit Stove Works of patent infringement related to a specific design for a stove. However, it was found that this particular design had already been patented by another party before Howard's claim and thus was not an original invention as required by law for patent protection. Therefore, the court held that there could be no infringement since there was no valid patent in place due to lack of novelty in the design claimed by Howard.

In the dissenting opinion for Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Michigan law limiting weekly working hours infringed upon an individual's right to contract freely. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of liberty and property rights without due process of law. They contended that if a worker voluntarily agreed to work more than ten hours per day, they should be allowed to do so without government interference. This perspective emphasized personal freedom and autonomy over state-imposed labor regulations aimed at protecting workers from exploitation by their employers.