Relying on the decision of the Court of Errors in Livingston v. Chancellor Kent held that the purpose of the 1793 Federal law was to exempt American vessels from the higher fees paid by foreign vessels, and that it did not invalidate the Livingston & Fulton monopoly. In 1818, Ogden sought an injunction in the New York Court of Chancery restraining Gibbons from operating steamboats in the waters covered by Ogden’s monopoly license ( Ogden v.

He started a ferry service in direct competition with Ogden. Chancellor James Kent denied the injunction against Ogden on the ground that he was operating within the terms of a monopoly license, but granted the injunction against Gibbons, enjoining him from navigating the waters of the New York bay or on the Hudson river between Staten Island and Powles Hook.įollowing Kent’s decision, Ogden and Gibbons became entangled in a dispute unrelated to the case, and Gibbons obtained a license under the Federal Coasting Act of 1793. Ogden held a license from the Livingston & Fulton monopoly but Gibbons, who operated in New Jersey, did not. Utilizing synchronized schedules, Aaron Ogden ran a ferry service between New York City and Elizabethtown Point, NJ, and Thomas Gibbons ran a service between Elizabethtown Pointe and several other ports in New Jersey. 48 (1819) where monopoly owners Livingston & Fulton sought an injunction against Ogden and Gibbons, the operators of a steamboat service between New York City and several ports in New Jersey. The first of these case came before the New York courts in Livingston v. This dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States, and in a landmark decision, Chief Justice John Marshall addressed the scope of Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. The most famous of these involved the Revolutionary War hero Aaron Ogden who sought an injunction restraining his erstwhile partner, Thomas Gibbons, from operating a ferry in competition with Ogden’s. But State monopolies were unpopular nationwide because they impeded the free market economy and, between 1819-1820, several cases challenging the New York steamboat monopoly were litigated in the New York Court of Chancery. Van Ingen, Livingston & Fulton continued to enforce their steamboat monopoly in New York. 1 ) are included as Document 14 and Document 16, respectively, of the materials underlying Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce).įollowing the 1812 decision of the New York Court of Errors in Livingston v.

488 ) and Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Gibbons v. In The Founder’s Constitution, an anthology of writings (letters, records of debates and early cases) relating to the Federal Constitution, Justice Platt’s New York Court of Errors opinion in Gibbons v. 1 (1824) Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the Federal Constitution

Chief justice marshall