Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

Supreme Court of the United States · 1819 · Constitutional Law
17 U.S. 250
Updated
conlawContracts Clausecorporationschartersprivate corporationeleemosynary corporationcollege chartercharter as contract

Facts

Dartmouth College was created by a 1769 charter incorporating trustees with the usual corporate powers and authority to fill vacancies in their own body. The college's funds consisted of private donations made on the faith of the charter for religious and educational purposes. In 1816, New Hampshire enacted statutes increasing the number of trustees, giving the executive power to appoint additional trustees, and creating a board of overseers with authority to inspect and control important acts of the trustees. The majority of the trustees refused to accept the amended charter and sued to recover corporate property held under the new statutory regime.

Issue

Whether the New Hampshire acts of 1816 altering Dartmouth College's charter violated the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution. More specifically, the question was whether the 1769 charter of Dartmouth College was a contract protected by the Constitution and, if so, whether the state statutes impaired that contract.

Rule

The Contracts Clause protects contracts respecting property or some object of value that confer rights enforceable in court. A charter creating a private eleemosynary corporation, founded on private donations and accepted on the faith that the funds will be managed as the charter prescribes, is such a contract; a state law impairs that contract when it substantially changes the corporation's governing structure or substitutes the state's will for the donors' and founders' arrangement.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In 1845, Georgia chartered Pine River Academy in Macon after Elias Mercer solicited private donations for a school to educate poor children and train teachers. The charter vested governance in nine trustees, authorized them to fill their own vacancies, and donors then conveyed land and securities to the corporation on the faith of that arrangement.

Years later, Georgia enacts a statute replacing the self-perpetuating board with a board whose new members are appointed by the governor. Under the majority's rule, which is the best analysis?

Explanation. The majority treated a charter as a protected contract when it creates a private eleemosynary institution, funded by private donations conveyed on the faith of the charter, and secures the future disposition of property through a specified governance structure. A statute that transfers control from charter-designated trustees to state appointees substitutes the state's will for the donors' arrangement and impairs the contract. The fact that the institution educates the public does not make it a public instrument of government, and the trustees may sue as representatives of the donors and beneficiaries. (Derived from Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (n.d.).)