In the 1916 case of Hill, a minor, et al. v. Reynolds, a minor, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not an underage individual could be held legally responsible for their actions in certain circumstances. The case involved two minors who had been involved in an altercation that resulted in injury. The court ruled that while children are generally presumed incapable of negligence due to their age and lack of understanding about potential consequences, this presumption can be overcome if it is shown that they have sufficient intelligence and capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions at the time they were committed. Therefore, even though both parties were minors at the time of incident occurred, one could still potentially be found liable for damages caused by his negligent conduct if he understood what he was doing and knew or should have known it would likely cause harm.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hill, a minor, et al. v. Reynolds, a minor (1916) is not readily available from public sources and legal databases. It's important to note that not all Supreme Court cases have published dissenting opinions; they are typically included when there is significant disagreement among justices about the interpretation of law or Constitution related to the case at hand. Without specific details on this particular case's dissenting opinion, it cannot be summarized accurately.