CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE

The three leading cases decided during Chief Justice Roger Taney's first term had all been argued while John Marshall was still serving as chief justice, and all would have been decided differently if Marshall had lived. (Marshall died in 1835; Taney was named chief justice in 1836.) Taney made certain all three were reargued and decided during his first month on the high bench—and he ensured that all three decisions bore his stamp. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge was the most significant of these decisions and represented a clear departure from the Marshall tradition. The case was a contract dispute. Massachusetts had entered into a contract with the Charles River Bridge Company to build a bridge over the Charles River connecting Boston and Charlestown. Later, the Massachusetts legislature granted a charter to the Warren Bridge company to build a second bridge over the Charles River connecting the same two cities. Charles River Bridge filed suit, arguing that Massachusetts had violated its contract and thus had violated the contract clause of the Constitution, which states in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." The key phrase for purposes of the case is "Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." Essentially, Charles River argued that Massachusetts had passed a law that impaired its obligation under an existing contract.