Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge

The Court held that corporate charters carry no implied monopolies, and ambiguities are construed in favor of the public.

Overview

The Charles River Bridge Company claimed its charter implicitly barred Massachusetts from authorizing a competing toll bridge, arguing a charter right to be free of competition. Chief Justice Taney, writing for the majority, rejected implied privileges, warning that reading monopolies into charters would hand corporations control over every road and bridge and impoverish the public. Charters confer only what they expressly state. The decision encouraged states to fund internal improvements and signaled that the Court would not obstruct new economic development to protect old investments, a sharp turn from the Marshall era's property deference.