Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Respublica versus Matlack, 1790 — 2 U.S. 108 · caselaw · US
General
Respublica versus Matlack
2 U.S. 1082 Dall. 108·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1790·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Respublica versus Matlack.
APPEAL from the settlement of the defendant’s accounts by the Comptroller General. The defendant had been appointed a commissioner by the Executive Council, to explore the navigable waters of the state ; and on account of his absence upon that service, Lewis had moved, at the preceding term, and now moved again, to postpone the trial. The Attorney General observed, that the appellant was not in duress, and might, if be pleased, attend. If, therefore, the cause was put off at this time, he hoped at least, a peremptory rule for trial at the next term would be entered.
[MAJORITY — By the Cooirp]
By the Cooirp
-It would wear an aspect of hardship, if the trial were to be forced on, at the very time that the plaintiff had engaged the defendant in his service, and sent him to a distance. But let a peremptory rule for trial at the next term be entered.