In this case, Daniel Webster argued that the plaintiff was a ‘private eleemosynary institution' and that  it was protected under the Contract Clause in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which forbid any  legislation which would impair a contractual obligation. In a 5-1 decision, John Marshall concurred with  this opinion and stated that the New Hampshire state legislature's amending of a charter granted by King  George III to Dartmouth College was invalid. For ten points name this 1819 case, which held that  ch
In this case, Daniel Webster argued that the plaintiff was a ‘private eleemosynary institution' and that  it was protected under the Contract Clause in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which forbid any  legislation which would impair a contractual obligation. In a 5-1 decision, John Marshall concurred with  this opinion and stated that the New Hampshire state legislature's amending of a charter granted by King  George III to Dartmouth College was invalid. For ten points name this 1819 case, which held that  charters were contracts protected by the Constitution.
In this case, Daniel Webster argued that the plaintiff was a ‘private eleemosynary institution' and that  it was protected under the Contract Clause in Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution, which forbid any  legislation which would impair a contractual obligation.
Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward