In the case of Brown v. Elliott, United States Marshal in and for the Northern District of California et al., 1911, plaintiff William H. Brown sought to recover damages from U.S. Marshal James T. Elliott and his deputies for alleged false imprisonment following a warrant issued by a commissioner of circuit court charging him with perjury during bankruptcy proceedings against him. The Supreme Court ruled that the marshal had acted within his authority under federal law when he arrested Brown on charges filed by a federal officer who claimed to have witnessed perjury committed during bankruptcy proceedings before an appointed referee in bankruptcy cases as provided by Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (30 Statute at Large 544). Therefore, it was held that neither the marshal nor his deputies could be held liable for false imprisonment because they were acting under lawful orders from their superiors in enforcing federal laws.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brown v. Elliott, United States Marshal in and for the Northern District of California, et al., was not provided or recorded. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a summary of this particular viewpoint on the case's outcome or legal reasoning behind it. It is common that some older Supreme Court cases do not have available records of dissenting opinions due to various reasons such as lack of documentation at that time period or unanimous decisions where no justice disagreed with the majority ruling.