Charles River Bridge v.
Warren Bridge case brief summary
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
36 U.S. 420
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs, the proprietors of an old bridge, appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that dismissed plaintiffs' bill in an action alleging that the act of incorporating defendants' new bridge impaired the obligation of the contract with plaintiffs.
FACTS: Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that the act of incorporating defendants' new bridge impaired the obligation of the contract with plaintiffs, who were the proprietors of an old bridge across the same river. The state supreme court dismissed plaintiffs' bill. Plaintiffs appealed.
HOLDING:
The United States Supreme Court stated that a state law could be retrospective in its character and could divest vested rights and yet not violate the United States Constitution unless it also impaired the obligation of a contract.
ANALYSIS:
The Court found that in order to recover, plaintiffs had to have shown that the title they claimed was acquired by contract, and that the terms of that contract were violated by the charter to the new bridge. The Court found that the rights of plaintiffs were derived entirely from the act of the legislature under which plaintiffs were incorporated and the act did not give plaintiffs exclusive privilege to the waters of the river. Therefore, the Court held that plaintiffs' bill had properly been dismissed.
CONCLUSION: The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' bill was affirmed. The Court held that there was no obligation under the contract with plaintiffs that prevented the incorporation of a new bridge over the same river as plaintiffs' bridge.
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs, the proprietors of an old bridge, appealed the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that dismissed plaintiffs' bill in an action alleging that the act of incorporating defendants' new bridge impaired the obligation of the contract with plaintiffs.
FACTS: Plaintiffs brought suit alleging that the act of incorporating defendants' new bridge impaired the obligation of the contract with plaintiffs, who were the proprietors of an old bridge across the same river. The state supreme court dismissed plaintiffs' bill. Plaintiffs appealed.
HOLDING:
The United States Supreme Court stated that a state law could be retrospective in its character and could divest vested rights and yet not violate the United States Constitution unless it also impaired the obligation of a contract.
ANALYSIS:
The Court found that in order to recover, plaintiffs had to have shown that the title they claimed was acquired by contract, and that the terms of that contract were violated by the charter to the new bridge. The Court found that the rights of plaintiffs were derived entirely from the act of the legislature under which plaintiffs were incorporated and the act did not give plaintiffs exclusive privilege to the waters of the river. Therefore, the Court held that plaintiffs' bill had properly been dismissed.
CONCLUSION: The judgment dismissing plaintiffs' bill was affirmed. The Court held that there was no obligation under the contract with plaintiffs that prevented the incorporation of a new bridge over the same river as plaintiffs' bridge.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment