Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

Marshall’s majority opinion begins by stating that the case is an “action of trover,” referring to a common law action to recover the value of property that has been wrongfully disposed of by another. After quoting article 1, section 10, of the Constitution, Marshall states: “On the judges of this Court, then, is imposed the high and solemn duty of protecting, from even legislative violation, those contracts which the Constitution of our country has placed beyond legislative control.” Marshall traces the history of the case and announces the Court’s conclusion: “Surely, in this transaction, every ingredient of a complete and legitimate contract is to be found.” He then indicates that there are two points for consideration: “1. Is this contract protected by the Constitution of the United States? 2. Is it impaired by the acts under which the defendant holds?” The Court’s conclusion is “yes” on both questions.

In his discussion of the first point, Marshall traces the history of Dartmouth College, which actually predated the king’s charter and was formed with private donations, making it a private corporation. He refers to Dartmouth as an “eleemosynary” institution, meaning that it existed for charitable purposes—in this case, to carry out the “charitable design of spreading Christian knowledge among the savages of our American wilderness.” The college was never a public, state organization but rather one formed, funded, and administered for a private purpose. On this basis, Marshall concludes that “this is a contract the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States.”

With regard to the second point, Marshall is emphatic: “It is too clear to require the support of argument that all contracts and rights respecting property remained unchanged by the revolution. The obligations, then, which were created by the charter to Dartmouth College were the same in the new that they had been in the old government.” But under the terms of the 1816 New Hampshire law, “The will of the State is substituted for the will of the donors in every essential operation of the College”—indeed, the college would become a “machine entirely subservient to the will of government.” Accordingly, Marshall finds that “the acts of the Legislature of New Hampshire . . . in this cause are repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.”