This article clarifies the precise connection between two early national Supreme Court decisions, the little-known Terrett v. Taylor (1815) and the landmark Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). The missing link between these cases is incorporation. Both disputes arose in the turmoil of post-Revolutionary disestablishment as state legislatures directly challenged the rights of colonial corporations. While Dartmouth College had been incorporated by a royal charter in colonial New Hampshire, the litigant in Terrett, a parish vestry, had been incorporated under common law in colonial Virginia. After the Revolution, Virginia's legislature disestablished the Anglican Church, disregarded its customary incorporation, revoked its post-revolutionary act of incorporation, and seized parish property. These radical policies set Virginia apart from other states and made these disputes a critical litmus test for the rights of all corporations. John Marshall opposed these policies while serving as a delegate in Virginia's legislature, and his views on these issues prefigured his opinion in Dartmouth College. Virginia's highest court upheld these policies as lawful, but the US Supreme Court's rejected them as unconstitutional in Terret. The Court's ruling in Terrett set a significant precedent for the standing of all private corporations vis-a-vis state legislatures and laid the groundwork for the Court's decision in Dartmouth College.

中文翻译：

---

从解散到达特茅斯学院诉伍德沃德：弗吉尼亚对宗教自由的斗争如何塑造了美国公司的历史

本文阐明了两个早期国家最高法院判决之间的确切联系，即鲜为人知的 Terrett v. Taylor (1815) 和具有里程碑意义的 Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819)。这些案例之间缺少的环节是合并。这两个争议都发生在革命后解体的动荡中，因为州立法机构直接挑战了殖民地公司的权利。虽然达特茅斯学院在新罕布什尔殖民地根据皇家特许状注册成立，但教区教区特雷特的诉讼当事人已根据弗吉尼亚殖民地的普通法注册成立。革命后，弗吉尼亚州的立法机构解散了圣公会，无视其习惯性成立，撤销了其革命后的成立行为，并没收了教区财产。这些激进的政策将弗吉尼亚州与其他州区分开来，并使这些争端成为检验所有公司权利的关键试金石。约翰·马歇尔在担任弗吉尼亚州立法机构代表时反对这些政策，他对这些问题的看法预示了他在达特茅斯学院的观点。弗吉尼亚州最高法院认为这些政策是合法的，但美国最高法院在特雷特案中以违宪为由驳回了这些政策。法院在 Terrett 案中的裁决为所有私营公司相对于州立法机构的地位树立了重要的先例，并为法院在达特茅斯学院的裁决奠定了基础。他对这些问题的看法预示了他在达特茅斯学院的观点。弗吉尼亚州最高法院认为这些政策是合法的，但美国最高法院在特雷特案中以违宪为由驳回了这些政策。法院在 Terrett 案中的裁决为所有私营公司相对于州立法机构的地位树立了重要的先例，并为法院在达特茅斯学院的裁决奠定了基础。他对这些问题的看法预示了他在达特茅斯学院的观点。弗吉尼亚州最高法院认为这些政策是合法的，但美国最高法院在特雷特案中以违宪为由驳回了这些政策。法院在 Terrett 案中的裁决为所有私营公司相对于州立法机构的地位树立了重要的先例，并为法院在达特茅斯学院的裁决奠定了基础。