This case was actually argued before the Supreme Court three times, with the respondent being represented by Richard Fletcher and later Simon Greenleaf, and only decided the final time. Only Justice Smith Thompson concurred in the dissent, featuring the line "It seems to me to be our duty to interpret laws, and not to wander into speculations upon their policy" written by Joseph Story. The majority held that the contract 
This case was actually argued before the Supreme Court three times, with the respondent being represented by Richard Fletcher and later Simon Greenleaf, and only decided the final time. Only Justice Smith Thompson concurred in the dissent, featuring the line "It seems to me to be our duty to interpret laws, and not to wander into speculations upon their policy" written by Joseph Story. The majority held that the contract in question should be interpreted narrowly, especially given the need for economic development and the failure of the state to explicitly grant a monopoly. Written by ►Roger Brooke Taney, FTP, name this 1837 case in which the namesake company wanted exclusive rights over a waterway in Massachusetts. 
This case was actually argued before the Supreme Court three times, with the respondent being represented by Richard Fletcher and later Simon Greenleaf, and only decided the final time.
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge