Fletcher v. Peck
| Fletcher v. Peck | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated February 15, 1810 |
||||
| Decided March 16, 1810 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| The defendant had bought a piece of land from a development company, which in turn had been acquired from the state of Georgia under the "Yazoo Land Act of 1795". He sold the property on to the plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit against Peck, claiming that he - Fletcher - had not been able to acquire unencumbered property when selling the land, since Peck - after the repeal of the "Yazoo Land Act of 1795" - never owned it has been. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| The contract clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the state of Georgia from annulmenting any property purchase agreement. This applies even if these contracts have only come about through bribe payments. | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| US Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 |
Fletcher v. Peck was a major decision by the United States Supreme Court . For the first time, the court ruled a state law unconstitutional .
As part of the settlement of the western United States, the State of Georgia confiscated 140,000 square kilometers of land from the indigenous people near the Yazoo River . The states of Alabama and Mississippi later emerged on this land . In 1795 the country was divided into four parts by the government. Each of these parts was then bought by the government for a very modest price of $ 500,000, i.e. $ 500,000. H. about 1.4 cents per acre , sold to four different development companies. This sale, unanimously supported by the Georgia State Legislature, became known as the Yazoo Land Act of 1795.
The case decided here resulted from the sale of the land to property speculators who had paid bribes for it. After the electorate had not re-elected most of the incumbents in the subsequent election, the state legislature withdrew the "Yazoo Land Act of 1795" and declared all contracts made under this law null and void.
John Peck had bought a piece of land from one of the development companies, which they in turn had acquired from the state of Georgia under the "Yazoo Land Act of 1795". He then sold the property on to Robert Fletcher in 1803, who brought a lawsuit against Peck, claiming that he - Fletcher - had not been able to acquire unencumbered property when selling the land because Peck - after the repeal of the "Yazoo Land Act of 1795" - never owned it. In the judgment, John Marshall argued that the sale to the development companies was a binding contract that could not be declared invalid under Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the American Constitution (so-called contract clause). This applies even if the contract had been concluded illegally. Fletcher has thus acquired unrestricted ownership.
See also
Other sources
- John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation by Jean Edward Smith, 1996, Henry Holt & Company.
- Yazoo: Law and Politics in the New Republic: The Case of Fletcher v. Peck by C. Peter Magrath, 1966 ISBN 0-608-18419-5