1

A Contract to Remember
Austin Maness
U.S. Constitutional History
Dr. Marler
10/11/12

There are several landmark decisions thought of when discussing the era of the
Supreme Court cases that Chief Justice John Marshall presided over. The majority of
these decisions are thought of highly by historians and Marshall is considered to be one
of the best and most influential Chief Justices in the history of the Supreme Court.
However the particular case and ruling that I am going to discuss is one that is
surrounded by scandal and comes with mixed feelings for many historians. The case
which I am referring to is the case of Fletcher v Peck. This was an early Supreme Court
case in first decade of the 19th century that would set a president to be followed for over
a century of American Supreme Court case law. Over the course of this paper I will
discuss 3 main points about the case including the background of the case, the ruling of
the case, and the effects of the case.
The first thing I would like to discuss is the history revolving around the case. The
case took place in the early 1800s after John Peck sold Robert Fletcher 15,000 acres
of land for three thousand dollars in 1803. The land that Peck sold Fletcher was part of
what was known at that time as the Yazoo lands, which would make up most of the
present day states of Mississippi and Alabama (michealariens). This would normally not
be an issue however the Yazoo lands were proven to have been corrupt in their sale
from the state of Georgia to four independent land companies. The corruption had
originated from bribes taken by the Georgia state legislature in order to sell this land to
the land companies for a very cheap price. The state of Georgia sold over thirty-five
million acres to these four companies for only five hundred thousand dollars
(Legaldictionary). The people having found out about this corruption did not re-elect the
vast majority of the legislature members. The newly elected members felt that this was

an injustice that must be corrected and therefore nullified the sale of the land to the
original four land companies. This was an issue because since the land had been sold
to the land companies they had sold it off to citizens who then in some cases may have
sold it off to other citizens. With the mass changing of hands of the land many people
were looking for compensation for their land that they could not receive.
This led to many people wishing to take legal action, however they were unable to sue
the state of Georgia due to previous legislation. The case only had one relevant
preceding ruling which was the case of Chisholm v Georgia. This case was about a
similar issue as Fletcher v Peck. The Chisholm v Georgia case was based around
Alexander Chisholm suing the state of Georgia for debts owed to the estate of Robert
Farquhar stemming from the American Revolutionary War. This case was significant to
the Fletcher v Peck case because Georgia in the Chisholm v Georgia case claimed that
the state could not be sued because of its sovereignty as a state. However the Supreme
Court would later rule in favor of Chisholm and set a precedent that an individual could
sue a state(Michaelariens). This ruling was almost immediately followed by the passing
of the eleventh amendment stating that a resident of a state cannot sue another state
for any purpose. This would become the main legislation in shaping the Fletcher v Peck
case. Beyond this however there was little precedent for a case such as this due to the
young history of the United States and its court system.
Due to the eleventh amendment none of the individuals who felt wronged by this
that lived in the state of Georgia were allowed to sue Georgia. Also the individuals who
lived outside of Georgia would have long difficult travels in order to reach a court
meeting in the attempt to sue the state and therefore would not have been very efficient

for those who wished to sue. Some people did however find an alternative route to sue.
It is widely believed that Peck and Fletcher were in cohorts together in the suit in order
to receive compensation. This can be referred to as a contrived case. Therefore in order
to advance the case Fletcher, the plaintiff, decided to sue Peck, the defendant. On the
basis of Peck selling Fletcher what he said was legally acquired land. The case
originally was tried in a Federal circuit court where the court decided in favor of Peck.
Fletcher then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is the highest of all courts and has judicial review power over
all courts as well. Therefore this was Fletchers last chance to get this ruling overturned.
The Supreme Court as I had mentioned had a similar case in Chisholm v Georgia
however this case was presided over by a different Supreme Court. The new courts
judges were Samuel Chase, Bushrod Washington, William Cushing, William Johnson,
Henry Brockholst Livingston, Thomas Todd, and Chief Justice John Marshall. Of these
justices only Chase and Cushing were on the court when the case of Chisholm v
Georgia was tried. Chief Justice John Marshall is to this day one of the most famous
and the most highly regarded Supreme Court Chief Justices in history. There were
many cases he presided over in his thirty-four years as Chief Justice however this
particular case seems to be one of the few that had a fair amount of disputers. Marshall
wrote the majority decision for the case citing the contract clause in Article 1 Section 10
Clause 1 of the Constitution as the reasoning behind the courts decision. The court
decided in a six to one majority that the state of Georgia was wrong in nullifying the sale
of the land and Georgia itself violated the contract clause in doing so. When a law is in
its nature a contract, when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of

the law cannot divest those rights" (McBride). These strong feelings from Marshall
helped convince the rest of the court at the time that the contract clause was unable to
be broken by states and therefore sided against Georgia. Marshalls subsequent
reasoning for this decision is expressed in this quote Although he agreed that as a
general principle one legislature is competent to repeal any act which a former
legislature was competent to pass, Marshall held that actions taken under a law cannot
be undone by a subsequent legislature. If the law in question is a contract, he reasoned,
repeal of the law cannot divest rights that have vested under the
contract(Legaldictionary). The gist of this reverts back to the contract clause that
includes descriptions of no ex post facto laws. Marshall felt that the framers of the
constitution intended this clause to not only apply to individuals but to states as well.
This issue would be discussed again in the future with different opinions.
The ruling was met with some opposition however the majority of people at the
time seemed to agree with the six to one decision by the Supreme Court spearheaded
by Chief Justice Marshall. In fact in Irons book he states that many residents of Georgia
who were upset with the corrupt acts committed by the Georgia Legislature to take
bribes and be involved in the Yazoo Land Scandal, marched on the state capital
demanding that members of the legislature be lynched for their crimes. Many members
of the legislature and other involved parties were later sent to prison, including two of
the more high profile names Robert Morris and ex Supreme Court Justice James
Wilson. Some supporters of these men objected to their imprisonment and the overall
result of the case however, Marshall as I stated used the contract clause in the
constitution to support this decision. This decision and support used by Marshall helped

define a much more strict interpretation of the contract clause than previously available
while also providing the first instance where the supreme court declared a state law to
be unconstitutional (McBride). This was important because during this time period many
questions were being raised about the implementation of the federal government. Many
people were still opposed to having a federal government that would rule over the
individual state governments and this was one of the first times that it became apparent
that the Federal government wouldnt hesitate to use the power they had been given
over the states in order to protect the constitution. This decision by Marshall came from
the key question presented to the Supreme Court, Whether, once the state of Georgia
had finalized the original sale of the land, it could constitutionally repeal that sale, or
whether the Constitution prohibited it from doing so(McBride). Marshall and the
Supreme Court ultimately felt that it was a breach of the Constitution for the Georgia
state legislature to overturn the previous ruling.
This ruling was accepted well by the general population due to the state being
the real offending party and the people being the party truly wronged in this case. Most
of the Supreme Court agreed as well with the decision as the six to one majority would
suggest however several people such as the aforementioned Robert Morris of
Pennsylvania and James Wilson were in disagreement with the verdict handed down by
the Marshall Court. The other mentionable dissenter was the one Supreme Court
Justice who did not agree with Marshalls decision, William Johnson. Johnson was one
of the more often dissenters of the Marshall Court era, and in this case didnt agree with
Marshall on the premise that he felt it applied more to natural rights than the contract
clause. Beyond these arguments it was hard to locate a specific argument to why this

decision was not agreed with due to the majority of people supporting the decision
made by the Marshall Court. This decision remains one of the most famous of the
Marshall Court era and because of its popularity among those familiar with the case and
the support of those familiar with the case the political fallout was minimum and
Marshalls legacy continued to grow and develop into what it is today.
The ruling handed down by the Marshall court set a precedent for future cases as
almost all landmark decisions do. This precedent seemed to be that the Supreme Court
would find against states in cases where individuals were wronged or where states
violated the constitution. This to me seems like it should be a staple of all Supreme
Courts, however the next Chief Justice after Marshall had a little different view on a
similar case. The next landmark case that had a similar issue came about in 1837 with
the Charles River Bridge v Warren Bridge case. The Supreme Court had a new Chief
Justice in Roger Taney who set a new precedent revolving around the contract clause
by siding with a state instead of an individual and this signaled the Court's shift towards
states' rights and away from the nationalism of the Marshall Court (McBride). It seems
as though this was the time when an individuals rights began to take a back seat in the
American Judiciary system. The new precedent set here by the Taney Court would
continue to be the norm and this interpretation of the contract clause would remain the
precedent until the 1930s. In this time period right after the great depression the
Contract Clause was altered to allow states to change a contract as long as it benefits
the general publics welfare. A common example of this is the way that states buy
properties from people in order to build highways or interstates. These things are

considered positive for the general publics welfare and therefore may be bought for a
reasonable amount.
The effects of this case in the short term for the individuals involved in the land
scandal were expressed in the following quote In 1814, Congress passed a bill
providing $5 million to settle the Yazoo claims and take title to the lands. Eventually,
disappointed landowners were paid $4.2 million, a huge amount of money, but the last
claims were not settled until decades later(michaelariens). With the people taken care
of the focus shifts to the political and legislative effects, these were simply to set the
new precedent on cases linked to the contract clause. As I have stated Marshalls
rulings paved the way for cases of similar situations during his term as Chief Justice
however the Taney court took a different stand in 1837. Taneys court would ultimately
set the long term standard to be followed for nearly a century to come. Future
legislations as previously mentioned would come to alter the contract clause and allow
for states to make changes to contracts in order to provide for the public good. This
case if re-tried today in my opinion would result in a similar verdict. I think while the
Federal Government does to an extent protect the states more than the people, that a
case like this would likely still fall in favor of the people on a count of the corruption and
illegal actions committed by representatives of the state.
In conclusion I have discussed the history, ruling and effects of the Fletcher v
Peck case. This case set precedents for the time period it was in and helped build the
legacy of one of the most famous Supreme Court Justices in history. While the decision
did have its dissenters, the majority of people agreed with the decision and supported
the handling of the case by the Marshall Court. Personally I feel that if the court system

still favored the people over the states as much as it did in Marshalls tenure as Chief
Justice that many people wouldnt have such a bleak outlook on the future of the
American government and such negative opinions of the court system and general
direction of the country. All of these things lead me to believe as shown by my title that
this is and will always be a contract to remember, if for nothing else simply to remind
people that at one time the ideals of our great country revolved around the people, not
the money or the political power or fame, but simply the people.

10

References
Irons, Peter. A Peoples History of the Supreme Court (rev. ed., Penguin Books, 2006).
McBride, Alex. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_charles.html
McBride, Alex. Fletcher v. Peck (1810).
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_fletcher.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fletcher+vs.+Peck
http://michaelariens.com/ConLaw/cases/fletcher.htm