On March 16, 1810 the final decision was decided. Before the case was brought to the supreme court, the case went to the federal circuit court which ruled in favor of John Peck and after, the case was brought to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. The question brought before the Supreme Court was whether or not the act of 1796 (the state of Georgia could repeal that sale) was a violation of Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. In other words could the contract between the two parties be validated by the act of a Georgia legislature.
The Supreme Court under the representation of Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in a 4 to 1 decision stating that the state of Georgia had violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution when the grants were repealed. The court agreed that the grants given through the Yazoo fraud were very unprofessional and bad quality but did not agree with Fletcher's argument that the state legislatures of Georgia have the authority to repeal an act made by a previous legislature. Fletcher also believed that Peck never had the title to the land so the sale was not legal because the Georgia legislature had repealed the act that gave peck the title. In Peck's defense, he entered into two valid contracts, one when he first bought the land originally, and second when he sold the land to Fletcher and the court seemed to agree that he was an innocent bystander in the original fraud. In Marshall's words, "When a law is in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot divest those rights." With this the court was able to conclude that Fletcher's argument was invalid was able to dismiss his case. Many other factors that dealt with the Marshall's reasoning such as:
1. Peck did have the title of the land and it was his to sale; no law in the state of Georgia prevented him from the sale due to the fact that this case dealt with state law where the state was not a party in the case.
2. Actions made under laws cannot be repealed even if the law itself can be repealed.
McBride, Alex. "Fletcher v. Peck (1810)." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.
"Fletcher v. Peck." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 14 Dec. 2014<http://www.encyclopedia.com>.
The Supreme Court under the representation of Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in a 4 to 1 decision stating that the state of Georgia had violated the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution when the grants were repealed. The court agreed that the grants given through the Yazoo fraud were very unprofessional and bad quality but did not agree with Fletcher's argument that the state legislatures of Georgia have the authority to repeal an act made by a previous legislature. Fletcher also believed that Peck never had the title to the land so the sale was not legal because the Georgia legislature had repealed the act that gave peck the title. In Peck's defense, he entered into two valid contracts, one when he first bought the land originally, and second when he sold the land to Fletcher and the court seemed to agree that he was an innocent bystander in the original fraud. In Marshall's words, "When a law is in its nature a contract, when absolute rights have vested under that contract, a repeal of the law cannot divest those rights." With this the court was able to conclude that Fletcher's argument was invalid was able to dismiss his case. Many other factors that dealt with the Marshall's reasoning such as:
1. Peck did have the title of the land and it was his to sale; no law in the state of Georgia prevented him from the sale due to the fact that this case dealt with state law where the state was not a party in the case.
2. Actions made under laws cannot be repealed even if the law itself can be repealed.
McBride, Alex. "Fletcher v. Peck (1810)." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2014.
"Fletcher v. Peck." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Encyclopedia.com. 14 Dec. 2014<http://www.encyclopedia.com>.