The case was argued twice before the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1809, future president John Quincy Adams represented Peck and future U.S. Supreme Court justice Joseph Story represented Peck in the reargument.
What famous man represented Fletcher in both arguments before the Court?
Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787, represented Fletcher both times. Martin allegedly showed up drunk to the first argument and the Court had to adjourn until he became sober. Martin was Maryland’s first attorney general and served as a defense counsel for Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase and Vice President Aaron Burr during their impeachment trials.
In what Contract Clause case did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in favor of a college?
The Marshall Court ruled in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) that the state of New Hampshire violated the Constitution’s Contract Clause by changing the status of Dartmouth College and altering the internal functioning of the college. The governor of the state, William Plumer, was a diehard Democratic-Republican who wished to change the Federalist-dominated Board of Trustees. He sought to change the private college into a state-controlled public university. The college’s trustees battled him in court. They argued that the school’s 1769 charter from the king of England and subsequently the New Hampshire government (before Plumer took office) gave it vested rights to its private status.
Dartmouth College, subject of the Supreme Court trial Dartmouth College v. Woodward, in which the Court ruled that the state of New Hampshire violated the Constitution’s Contract Clause by changing the school’s status from a private college to a state-controlled public university. Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
Chief Justice John Marshall agreed, writing that the college’s private charter was a contract protected by the Contract Clause. “The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States.”
What attorney argued the case for Dartmouth College?
Former U.S. representative Daniel Webster of New Hampshire (and future U.S. representative and senator from Massachusetts) successfully argued the case for Dartmouth College. He was particularly passionate in his argument, because he had graduated from Dartmouth in 1801.
The Supreme Court upheld the National Bank in what famous case?
The Marshall Court unanimously ruled in McCullough v. Maryland (1819) that Congress had the power to create a national bank and that the state of Maryland could not tax a branch of the National Bank located in Maryland. The state of Maryland levied a tax on all banks not chartered by the state. This tax applied only to the National Bank. James McCullough, the National Bank’s cashier, refused to pay the state tax, leading to the lawsuit.
CourtSpeak: Dartmouth College v. Woodward Contract Clause Case (1819)
Chief Justice John Marshall (thoughts on a corporation): “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality; properties, by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs, and to hold property, without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object, like one immortal being. But this being does not share in the civil government of the country, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character, than immortality would confer such power or character on a natural person. It is no more a state instrument, than a natural person exercising the same powers would be.”
What did Chief Justice Marshall say about the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution?
Marshall reasoned that Congress had the power to create the National Bank based on its powers under the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution, which provides: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
How long were oral arguments in the McCullough case?
Oral arguments in McCullough v. Maryland lasted nine days—between February 22 and March 3, 1819.
CourtSpeak: Congress’s Powers under the “Necessary and Proper” Clause
Chief Justice John Marshall: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”
What famous lawyers argued the McCullough case?
Daniel Webster, who argued nearly 250 cases before the Court in his illustrious career, was one of the lawyers for the United States in the case. Luther Martin, whether drunk or sober, argued the case for the state of Maryland.
In what two decisions involving the confiscation of Loyalist property did the Supreme Court establish its authority over state courts?
One of the controversial issues arising with the early Marshall Court concerned the confiscation of property from those loyal to the British government—individuals often called Loyalists. At issue in Fairfax’s Devise v. Hunter’s Lessee was the legality of the state of Virginia’s confiscation of the estate of the late Lord Thomas Fairfax, including a stretch of land called the Northern Neck of Virginia.
Lord Fairfax had instructed that, upon his death, the property would be bequeathed to his nephew, the Reverend Denny Martin. However, state officials confiscated the land and sold the land to investor David Hunter. The Virginia courts determined that the property belonged to Hunter, reasoning that its state laws dealing with the confiscation of property were constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Virginia court’s decision, with Justice Joseph Story reasoning that the land should go to Fairfax’s heirs. Story also noted that under the unpopular Jay Treaty with the British, the confiscation of Loyalist land was illegal.
On remand, the Virginia Supreme Court thumbed its nose at the U.S. Supreme Court, questioning the authority of the Court under Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the Court the jurisdiction to hear appeals from state courts. The Virginia Supreme Court jurists, such as the well-known Spencer Roane, criticized the Court’s opinion. Roane believed that the federal government was encroaching upon the sovereign
