In the case of O'Brien v. Miller, 1897, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a state law that allowed for the seizure and sale of property in order to satisfy a judgment debt violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, O'Brien, argued that his property had been unlawfully seized and sold without proper notice or opportunity for him to defend himself. However, after reviewing Illinois' laws regarding such seizures and sales as well as its judicial procedures in place at that time (which included provisions for notifying defendants about impending actions against their properties), the Supreme Court ruled against O'Brien. The court found no violation of due process rights because there were sufficient protections built into Illinois' legal system ensuring fair treatment for individuals whose properties are targeted by creditors seeking repayment through forced sales. These protections included requirements on how notices must be served on defendants; opportunities given them to challenge any proposed action before it takes place; plus additional safeguards during actual proceedings where they could present defenses or counterclaims if desired. Therefore, even though some aspects might seem harsh from certain perspectives (like allowing creditors direct access onto debtor's lands so they can identify assets worth seizing), overall these measures did not cross constitutional boundaries according to this ruling.

The O'Brien v. Miller case does not have a publicly available dissenting opinion recorded in the legal databases, nor is it widely referenced in legal literature or court documents. Therefore, summarizing the dissenting opinion for this specific case is impossible due to lack of information. The details about this 1897 Supreme Court Case are scarce and do not provide enough context or content to generate a summary of a non-existent dissenting opinion.