Dartmouth College v. Woodward was a famous court case that was decided by the Supreme Court in 1819.
In 1769, the British Crown granted a charter to trustees of Dartmouth College, which establish the college as a private charitable school. Over the years, Dartmouth College was granted land by New Hampshire State. In 1815 Wheelock, a presidency of college, was removed by trustees. Then Wheelock appealed this case to the State legislature of New Hampshire. In 1816 the legislature of New Hampshire tried to cancel the charter without agreement of the college’s trustees. Their purpose was to change this private college into a public university. In Wheelock and his supporters’ scheme, once Dartmouth College became a public university, the state …show more content…
Finally, William H. Woodward, the school secretary, succeed in seizing the school seal records, and other properties. However, the officials and friends of Dartmouth College claimed that the college’s charter was still valid; also, they believed that the state legislature shouldn’t have authority to void the charter and make changes among the college. The last straw, they sued William H. Woodward; and Daniel Webster, former student of Dartmouth College, appealed this case to the Supreme Court. The issue of this court case is about contract clause which states in Article 1, section 10, clause I “No state shall… pass any…Law impairing the Obligations of the Contracts….” Therefore, two important questions should need to be brought into consideration are whether the charter was a contract being protected by the U.S …show more content…
It is undoubtable that a state has power to change contract if it was to a public corporation. However, in case of a private corporation, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out that the charter to the college was a contract in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, so the charters’ obligations was under protection of the Constitution from the state, impairing it would be the acts of violation of the Constitution according to the Article 1, section 10, Clause I “No state shall… pass any…Law impairing the Obligations of the Contracts….”. In addition, Dartmouth College was a private school; thus, its endowed properties were unconnected to the state. The college has its own capacity to manage its properties and affairs. It was incorporated for certain purposes that the founder wanted it to do, and its trustees was originally allotted and supported by the founder, so the trustees were the one that hold the whole power, expressed in charter, that bestowed by the founder. The trustees still have their power as long as the charter is still valid and still was unchanged by original involved parties. For example, before Eleazar died, he had authority to appoint John Wheelock to become a next president of school, but John Wheelock couldn’t become the president without the approval from the trustees; also, trustees had their whole power to relieve the college’s president in certain
In 1769, the British Crown granted a charter to trustees of Dartmouth College, which establish the college as a private charitable school. Over the years, Dartmouth College was granted land by New Hampshire State. In 1815 Wheelock, a presidency of college, was removed by trustees. Then Wheelock appealed this case to the State legislature of New Hampshire. In 1816 the legislature of New Hampshire tried to cancel the charter without agreement of the college’s trustees. Their purpose was to change this private college into a public university. In Wheelock and his supporters’ scheme, once Dartmouth College became a public university, the state …show more content…
Finally, William H. Woodward, the school secretary, succeed in seizing the school seal records, and other properties. However, the officials and friends of Dartmouth College claimed that the college’s charter was still valid; also, they believed that the state legislature shouldn’t have authority to void the charter and make changes among the college. The last straw, they sued William H. Woodward; and Daniel Webster, former student of Dartmouth College, appealed this case to the Supreme Court. The issue of this court case is about contract clause which states in Article 1, section 10, clause I “No state shall… pass any…Law impairing the Obligations of the Contracts….” Therefore, two important questions should need to be brought into consideration are whether the charter was a contract being protected by the U.S …show more content…
It is undoubtable that a state has power to change contract if it was to a public corporation. However, in case of a private corporation, Chief Justice Marshall pointed out that the charter to the college was a contract in the letter and spirit of the Constitution, so the charters’ obligations was under protection of the Constitution from the state, impairing it would be the acts of violation of the Constitution according to the Article 1, section 10, Clause I “No state shall… pass any…Law impairing the Obligations of the Contracts….”. In addition, Dartmouth College was a private school; thus, its endowed properties were unconnected to the state. The college has its own capacity to manage its properties and affairs. It was incorporated for certain purposes that the founder wanted it to do, and its trustees was originally allotted and supported by the founder, so the trustees were the one that hold the whole power, expressed in charter, that bestowed by the founder. The trustees still have their power as long as the charter is still valid and still was unchanged by original involved parties. For example, before Eleazar died, he had authority to appoint John Wheelock to become a next president of school, but John Wheelock couldn’t become the president without the approval from the trustees; also, trustees had their whole power to relieve the college’s president in certain