In the case of Amos Kendall, Postmaster General of the United States v. The United States on the relation of William B. Stokes et al., a dispute arose between two parties over an act passed by Congress in 1836 that authorized postmasters to pay certain sums for services rendered and expenses incurred while performing their duties as postmasters. At issue was whether or not these payments were valid under existing laws and regulations governing postal service at the time. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that such payments were indeed legal, finding that they did not violate any existing laws or regulations pertaining to postal service at the time. Furthermore, it held that Congress had acted within its authority when passing this act in 1836 and thus could be enforced without violating any other law or regulation regarding postal service at the time either directly or indirectly.

In the case of Amos Kendall, Postmaster General of the United States v. The United States on the relation of William B. Stokes et al., Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had no authority to pass an act allowing for compensation to postmasters who were appointed prior to 1834 and whose salaries were not increased by subsequent acts passed after their appointment. He believed that such an act was unconstitutional because it would be tantamount to granting a salary increase without any consideration or services rendered by those individuals, thus violating Article I Section 9 Clause 7 of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from passing any bill “granting any title of nobility” or increasing its own members' salaries during their current term in office. Furthermore, he argued that even if such an act could be considered constitutional under certain circumstances, this particular instance did not meet those criteria as there was no evidence presented showing how much money each individual postmaster should receive nor what services they provided while employed at their respective posts. Thus, according to Taney's dissent, Congress had overstepped its bounds with this particular legislation and should have allowed these postmasters' original contracts with the government stand as is instead of attempting to retroactively grant them additional compensation beyond what they originally agreed upon when accepting employment at their respective posts.