en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taney_Court#Membership
1 correction found
and sued the state, arguing that Massachusetts was breaking a charter it had given the plaintiff in the 18th century.
In Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, the Charles River Bridge proprietors did not sue Massachusetts as the defendant. The case was brought against the Proprietors of the Warren Bridge and others, while arguing that a Massachusetts law impaired the bridge company's charter.
Full reasoning
The article misidentifies who was sued in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge.
The official case title was “The Proprietors of the Charles River Bridge, Plaintiffs in error, v. The Proprietors of the Warren Bridge and others.” That is, the plaintiffs proceeded against the Warren Bridge proprietors and other defendants, not against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as the defendant.
The case did involve a challenge to a Massachusetts legislative act on Contract Clause grounds, so it is fair to say the plaintiffs argued that a state law impaired their charter. But the article goes further and says they “sued the state,” which is not what the case report says.
Cornell's text of the U.S. Reports also explains that the original bill was filed to obtain an injunction to prevent construction of the Warren Bridge, and later notes that the case was argued by counsel “for the plaintiffs” and “for the defendants,” again referring to the bridge proprietors rather than Massachusetts itself as the opposing party.
1 source
- The Proprietors of the CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, Plaintiffs in error, v. The Proprietors of the WARREN BRIDGE and others. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The Proprietors of the CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE, Plaintiffs in error, v. The Proprietors of the WARREN BRIDGE and others. ... the bill was filed, after the passage of the law, in order to obtain an injunction to prevent its erection ... The case was argued ... for the plaintiffs ... and ... for the defendants.