Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Last updated

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided February 2, 1819
Full case nameTrustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
Citations17 U.S. 518 ( more )
4 Wheat. 518; 4 L. Ed. 629
Case history
PriorError to the New Hampshire Superior Court
Holding
The charter granted by the British crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New-Hampshire, in the year 1769, is a contract within the meaning of that clause of the constitution of the United States, (art. 1. s. 10.) which declares that no State shall make any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The charter was not dissolved by the revolution.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Marshall
Associate Justices
Bushrod Washington  · William Johnson
H. Brockholst Livingston  · Thomas Todd
Gabriel Duvall  · Joseph Story
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Johnson, Livingston
ConcurrenceWashington, joined by Livingston
ConcurrenceStory, joined by Livingston
DissentDuvall
Todd took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819), was a landmark decision in United States corporate law from the United States Supreme Court dealing with the application of the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor of New Hampshire. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which predated the creation of the State. [1]

Contents

The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the American free enterprise system. [2]

Background

In 1769, King George III of Great Britain granted a charter to Dartmouth College that spelled out the purpose of the school, set up the structure to govern it, and gave it land. In 1816, over 30 years after the conclusion of the American Revolution, the New Hampshire legislature altered Dartmouth's charter in order to reinstate the College's deposed president, place the ability to appoint positions in the hands of the governor, add new members to the board of trustees, and create a state-controlled board of visitors with veto power over trustee decisions. This effectively converted the school from a private to a public institution. The College's book of records, corporate seal, and other corporate property were removed. The trustees of the College objected and sought to have the actions of the legislature declared unconstitutional.

The trustees retained Dartmouth alumnus Daniel Webster, a New Hampshire lawyer who later became a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts and Secretary of State under President Millard Fillmore. Webster argued the college's case against William H. Woodward, the state-approved secretary of the new board of trustees. Webster's speech in support of Dartmouth (which he called "a small college," adding, "and yet there are those who love it") was so moving that it helped convince Chief Justice John Marshall.[ citation needed ]


Judgment

The decision, handed down on February 2, 1819, ruled in favor of the college and invalidated the act of the New Hampshire Legislature, which in turn allowed Dartmouth to continue as a private institution and take back its buildings, seal, and charter. The majority opinion of the court was written by Marshall. The opinion reaffirmed Marshall's belief in the sanctity of a contract (also seen in Fletcher v. Peck [3] ) as necessary to the functioning of a republic (in the absence of royal rule, contracts rule).[ according to whom? ]

The Court ruled that the college's corporate charter qualified as a contract between private parties, the King and the trustees, with which the legislature could not interfere. Even though the United States were no longer royal colonies, the contract was still valid because the Constitution said that a state could not pass laws to impair a contract. The fact that the government had commissioned the charter did not transform the school into a civil institution. Marshall's opinion emphasized that the term "contract" referred to transactions involving individual property rights, not to "the political relations between the government and its citizens." [4]

Significance

The decision was not without precedent; the Court had invalidated a state act in Fletcher v. Peck (1810), [3] concluding that contracts, no matter how they were procured (in that case, a land contract had been illegally obtained), cannot be invalidated by state legislation. Fletcher was not a popular decision at the time, and a public outcry ensued. Thomas Jefferson's earlier commiseration with New Hampshire Governor William Plumer stated essentially that the earth belongs to the living. Popular opinion influenced some state courts and legislatures to declare that state governments had an absolute right to amend or repeal a corporate charter. The courts, however, have imposed limitations on this.

After the Dartmouth decision, many states wanted more control, so they passed laws or constitutional amendments giving themselves the general right to alter or revoke at will, which the courts found to be a valid reservation. [5] [6] But the courts had established that the alteration or revocation of private charters or laws authorizing private charters must be reasonable and cannot cause harm to the members (founders, stockholders, and the like). [7] [8] [9]

The traditional view is that this case is one of the most important Supreme Court rulings, strengthening the Contracts Clause and limiting the power of the States to interfere with private charters, including those of commercial enterprises. [10]

See also

Notes

  1. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat. ) 518 (1819).
  2. Newmyer, R. K. (2001). John Marshall and the heroic age of the Supreme Court. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press. ISBN   0-8071-2701-9.
  3. 1 2 Fletcher v. Peck , 10 U.S. (6 Cranch ) 87 (1810).
  4. The Oyez Project, "Dartmouth College v. Woodward", 17 U.S. 518 (1819)]
  5. Miller v. State, 82 U.S. (15 Wall. ) 478 (1872).
  6. Pennsylvania College Cases , 80 U.S. (13 Wall. ) 190 (1871).
  7. Terrett v. Taylor , 13 U.S. (9 Cranch ) 43 (1815).
  8. Shields v. Ohio, 95 U.S. 319 (1877).
  9. Greenwood v. Freight Company, 105 U.S. 13 (1881).
  10. "CHAPTER 14. PRIVATE CONTRACTS, THE CONTRACT CLAUSE AND THE POLICE POWER", Charles Evans Hughes and the Supreme Court, Columbia University Press, pp. 168–184, December 31, 1951, ISBN   978-0-231-87956-9 , retrieved July 6, 2023

Related Research Articles

Corporate personhood or juridical personality is the legal notion that a juridical person such as a corporation, separately from its associated human beings, has at least some of the legal rights and responsibilities enjoyed by natural persons. In most countries, a corporation has the same rights as a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued.

Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Supreme Court first ruled a state law unconstitutional. The decision created a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts and hinted that Native Americans did not hold complete title to their own lands.

Dartmouth University is a defunct institution in New Hampshire which existed from 1817 to 1819. It was the result of a thwarted attempt by the state legislature to make Dartmouth College, a private college, into a public university. The United States Supreme Court case that settled the matter, Dartmouth College v. Woodward, is considered a landmark.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Johnson (judge)</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1804 to 1834

William Johnson Jr. was an American attorney, state legislator, and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1804 until his death in 1834. When he was 32 years old, Johnson was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Thomas Jefferson. He was the first Jeffersonian Republican member of the Court as well as the second Justice from the state of South Carolina. During his tenure, Johnson restored the act of delivering seriatim opinions. He wrote about half of the dissents during the Marshall Court, leading historians to nickname him the "first dissenter".

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In recent opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas has called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Archibald Campbell</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1853 to 1861

John Archibald Campbell was an American jurist. He was a successful lawyer in Georgia and Alabama, where he served in the state legislature. Appointed by Franklin Pierce to the United States Supreme Court in 1853, he resigned at the beginning of the American Civil War, traveled south and became an official of the Confederate States of America. After serving six months in a military prison at war's end, he secured a pardon and resumed his law practice in New Orleans, where he also opposed Reconstruction.

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the Contract Clause, imposes certain prohibitions on the states. These prohibitions are meant to protect individuals from intrusion by state governments and to keep the states from intruding on the enumerated powers of the U.S. federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Wheelock</span>

John Wheelock was the eldest son of Eleazar Wheelock who was the founder and first president of Dartmouth College; John Wheelock succeeded his father as the College’s second president.

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837), was a case regarding the Charles River Bridge and the Warren Bridge of Boston, Massachusetts, heard by the United States Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Francis Brown (college president)</span> President of Dartmouth College

Francis Brown was an American Congregational minister who served as the 3rd president of Dartmouth College. He graduated from the college in 1805 and from 1806–1809 held a tutorship there. He also served as a pastor of the Meetinghouse under the Ledge in North Yarmouth, Massachusetts. Brown was removed from his presidency at the college as part of the actions that resulted in the Dartmouth College case, but was reinstated following the 1819 decision in favor of the college.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marshall Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835

The Marshall Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1801 to 1835, when John Marshall served as the fourth Chief Justice of the United States. Marshall served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Roger Taney took office. The Marshall Court played a major role in increasing the power of the judicial branch, as well as the power of the national government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seal of Dartmouth College</span> Insignia of Dartmouth College since 1773

The Seal of Dartmouth College is the official insignia of Dartmouth College, an Ivy League university located in Hanover, New Hampshire, United States. The original seal of Dartmouth College was adopted in 1773, and was engraved by Nathaniel Hurd, who also designed the seal for Harvard College. In 1940, the seal was redone as a line drawing by W. A. Dwiggins, and was further modified in 1957 to correct the founding year of the school from 1770 to 1769. Although Dartmouth College introduced a new logo known as the "D-Pine" in 2018, school officials at the time said that it was not intended to replace the shield.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gabriel Duvall</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1811 to 1835

Gabriel Duvall was an American politician and jurist. Duvall was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1811 to 1835, during the Marshall Court. Previously, Duvall was the Comptroller of the Treasury, a Maryland state court judge, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Maryland, and a Maryland state legislator.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court</span> Court era recognizing Native American tribal rights

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) issued some of the earliest and most influential opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, several of them written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself. However, without exception, the remarks of the Court on aboriginal title during this period are dicta. Only one indigenous litigant ever appeared before the Marshall Court, and there, Marshall dismissed the case for lack of original jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Certificate of division</span> Source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States

A certificate of division was a source of appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1802 to 1911. Created by the Judiciary Act of 1802, the certification procedure was available only where the circuit court sat with a full panel of two: both the resident district judge and the circuit-riding Supreme Court justice. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, he did not have "the privilege of dividing the court when alone."

The history of corporate law in the United States concerns the development of the corporation, primarily as a business organization, under the different United States corporate law, including federal regulation.

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-1702, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case related to limitations on First Amendment-based free speech placed by private operators. The Court held that a public access station was not considered a state actor for purposes of evaluating free speech issues in a 5–4 ruling split along ideological lines. Prior to the Court's decision, analysts believed that the case had the potential to determine whether limitations on free speech on social media violate First Amendment rights. However, the Court's narrow holding avoided that issue.