Courts read charters narrowly to let new enterprises displace vested monopolies

Evidence

But the Supreme Court held against them. There was no impairment of the contract (the charter). A charter had to be narrowly interpreted. The state never promised not to charter a competing bridge. The Supreme Court (speaking through Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney) insisted on reading the original charter quite literally, insisting that, in interpreting a charter, nothing can be implied or read into it. The case, however, reflects beautifully the ethos of the times: the worship of growth, progress, development; the impatience with old, vested rights; the idea that an economic omelet cannot be made without breaking eggs. The old bridge, like the old turnpikes, had to give way to whatever was more dynamic, more modern, and more progressive. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 1096

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Early American corporations required individual legislative charters and held monopoly franchises — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law: An Introduction, 771

Broader Connections

• Early American corporations required individual legislative charters and held monopoly franchises #corroborates (0.90) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 771