In the case of Jones v. Perkins, Deputy United States Marshal, et al., 1917, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Jones had purchased land from an individual who was part Native American and thus subject to certain restrictions on property sales under federal law. When another party claimed ownership of the same plot of land based on a purchase made after these restrictions were lifted, Jones sued for quiet title (a request to resolve any disputes over property rights). However, both lower courts ruled against him due to his failure to comply with statutory requirements regarding notice periods before filing such suits. The Supreme Court reversed this decision by ruling that while it is generally necessary for plaintiffs seeking quiet title to provide adequate notice as per state laws; exceptions can be made when there are valid reasons why they could not have done so within the stipulated time frame - like if they were unaware about potential claims against their properties until after these deadlines had passed. In this particular instance since Jones only became aware about conflicting claims once he received eviction notices from new owners long after purchasing his property; he should've been allowed more time than usually permitted under local statutes for serving requisite notices before initiating legal proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jones v. Perkins, Deputy United States Marshal, et al., 1917 was not explicitly recorded or available for review. The Supreme Court decisions from this era often did not include detailed records of individual justices' opinions unless they wrote separate concurring or dissenting opinions. In many cases, only the majority decision and reasoning were thoroughly documented and preserved for future reference. Therefore, it is impossible to provide a summary of the dissenting opinion in this particular case without access to such specific information about it.