Smith v. The State of Maryland, at the instance and for the use of Carroll and Maccubbin is a Supreme Court case that dealt with whether or not an individual can sue a state in federal court. In this particular case, Smith was suing the State of Maryland on behalf of two individuals who had been wrongfully arrested by officers from Baltimore County. The issue before the court was whether or not it could hear such cases against states when they were brought to them through private citizens rather than through other government officials. Ultimately, Chief Justice Marshall held that while states are immune from suit in their own courts, they may be sued in federal courts if done so properly under certain circumstances as outlined by Congress. This decision established an important precedent which has since been used to allow individuals to bring suits against states even when those suits would otherwise be barred due to sovereign immunity protections afforded by state governments

In Smith v. The State of Maryland, at the instance and for the use of Carroll and Maccubbin, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the state court had erred in its decision to deny compensation to Smith for his services as an agent. He reasoned that since Smith was employed by Carroll and Maccubbin with their knowledge and consent, they were liable for any damages incurred due to his actions on their behalf. Furthermore, Marshall contended that even if there was no express contract between them regarding payment or compensation, it could be implied from the circumstances surrounding his employment. As such, he concluded that Smith should have been awarded some form of recompense from either party involved in this case - whether it be through direct payment or reimbursement of expenses incurred while performing duties on behalf of Carroll and Maccubbin.