Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/180/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/180/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Wallace v. United States, 133 U.S. 180 (1890)
Wallace v. United States
No. 855
Submitted January 10, 1890
Decided January 2T, 1890
133 U.S. 180
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS
Syllabus
An envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States to Turkey was never appointed before July 13, 1882. On that day, the claimant, being minister resident and consul general of the United States to Turkey at a salary of $7,500 a year, was appointed to the higher grade. By each of the diplomatic appropriation bills of 1882, 1883 and 1884, $7,500 was appropriated for the salary of an envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Turkey. The claimant, having been paid the $7,500 salary for each of those years, sued in the Court of Claims to recover the difference between that amount and an annual salary of $10,000, claiming the latter under § 1670 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the Act of March 3, 1875, c. 153, 18 Stat. 483. Held that as, under the amendment of 1875, the salary was to be $10,000 "unless where a different compensation is prescribed by law," and the office did not exist before July 1, 1882, and the first provision made by Congress for a salary for it was made by the Act of July I, 1882, and was for $7,500, and the same provision was continued while the claimant thereafter held the office, and he was paid the $7,500, he had no further claim.
The case distinguished from that of United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389.
Appeal from the Court of Claims. Judgment there against the claimant.
