preview

Proprietors Of Charles River Bridge V. Warren

Decent Essays

Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge.1836 FACTS OF THE CASE: Charles Bridge Company was required to create a bridge and collect tolls. Later, Warren Bridge was created and it was free, meaning no tolls required. Warren Bridge was taking all the traffic away. Charles Bridge suing because legislature was breaching initial contract. LEGAL ISSUES: Does Warren Bridge charter Article 1 section 10 of constitution impair the economic contract with Charles River Bridge? HOLDINGS: No. No exclusive rights over water and they did not intend to invade company profit, new travel and trade have priority in the decision of the court. The court saw no real claim to the water the bridge is over. RATIONALE: Court held that the state did not violate any contract by creating a second bridge. The court saw fair abilities for both bridges to have multiple travel choices per society. SEPARATE OPINION: 5 votes Warren Bridge, 2 votes against. HOMEBUILDING V. BLISDELL.1934. FACTS OF THE CASE: The mortgage moratorium law was established in Minnesota. Homeowners could seek guidance with foreclosures. Mortgage holders were to wait two years before foreclosure. The idea was that the depression was occurring and the Minnesota emergencies plan to help maintain economic society. LEGAL ISSUES: Is this a violation of contract clause through obligation of private contracts? HOLDINGS: No circumstances of Depression to help economic interest of the states. Emergency situations would allow

Get Access