Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 U.S. 303

Commonwealth v. Matlack

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1804-09-01

The defendant had been clerk of the Senate ; and in that character received $900, as a fund to defray the contingent expenses of the house, during several sessions. The committee of accounts called upon him for a settlement; but he declined exhibiting his vouchers, unless they would allow him a certain retrospective compensation, to which he contended that he was entitled, under an act passed on the 22d of April 1794.

1 counsel of record

Relies on Reeside v. Walker · United States v. Eckford

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1804-09-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

2018041810182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

THE defendant had been clerk of the Senate; and in that character received 900 dollars, as a fund to defray the contingent expenses of the house, during several sessions. The Committee of accounts called upon him for a settlement; but he declined exhibiting his vouchers, unless they would allow him a certain retrospective compensation, to which he contended that he was entitled, under an act passed on the 22d of April 1794. The Senate thereupon directed the comptroller to institute the present suit. Upon the trial, the defendant proved, that he had expended considerably more money, than he had received, for the use of the house; and he claimed a verdict for the amount of his advances, as well as for the additional compensation allowed by the act of 1794.

¶2

THE COURT.

¶3

But, after argument, the COURT declared, that the defendant could not indirectly recover from the state, a substantive, independent, claim by way of set-off, any more than he could directly recover a debt due from the state, by bringing a suit against her. That the present action was brought to compel an account for money received for the use of the Senate; in which the defendant, if he proved, that the money received was so applied, would be entitled to a verdict; but that even then, he could not be entitled to a verdict for the amount of his advances; which the Senate alone was competent to allow.

¶4

Verdict, generally, for the defendant.

¶5

M'Kean, attorney-general, for the commonwealth.

¶6

Dallas, for the defendant.

/4/us/303 · .json · Public domain