status, increased the number of trustees, and therefore in essence impaired the original contract of the college. The New Hampshire legislature was found to violate the Constitution and the act was void. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall states:Neither the founders of the college nor the youth for whose benefit it was founded, complain of the alteration made in its charter, or think themselves injured by it…It is not enough to say that this particular case was not in the mind of the convention when the article was framed, nor of the American people when it was adopted…had this case been suggested, the language would have been so varied…the case being within the words of the rule, must be in operation likewise. (Vol. II: Constitutional Law and Politics, pg. 229-230)Although the college could have benefited from the new legislation, Chief Justice Marshall felt that since the old charter was protected by the contract clause of the Constitution, the state itself could not change the words of the charter. It can be easily seen that Supreme Court of the Marshall era literally used the words of the Constitution to decide their cases, but over the next decades, their dependence on the contract clause would decline.One hundred and fifteen years after the Marshall Court expansively read the contract clause to protect the interests in a corporate charter granted by the English Crown, the state of Minnesota passed the Minnesota Moratorium Act of 1934. In response to the social pressures arising from the Great Depression in the 1930’s, the state legislature provided that one who is unable to pay or retire a mortgage at the date of redemption can be granted a moratorium to prevent the foreclosures of homeowners and farmers. Under the new legislation, John Blaisdell sought an extension of time on the payment of his mortgage to Home Building and Loan Association and was awarded the extension by...
