conveyances. This history appears on public
record so that title to land can be checked.
CHAIN REFERRAL
A type of sales plan that convinces individuals to
make purchases based upon the promise that their
payment will be reduced for each new purchaser
they recommend to the seller.
Referral sales in general are under close
scrutiny by
CONSUMER PROTECTION laws and are
illegal in many states due to their
FRAUDULENT
and misleading nature. A chain referral is a type
of pyramid sales scheme whereby an innocent
consumer is lulled in to investing money based
on the promise that he will eventually make
money, which is usually highly unlikely, if not
impossible.
CROSS REFERENCE
Ponzi Scheme.
CHAMBERS
A judge’s private room or office wherein he or she
hears motions, signs papers, and performs other
tasks pertaining to his or her office when a session
of the court, such as a trial, is not being held.
Business transacted in a private setting is
said to be done “in chambers.”
CHAMIZAL TRACT
A description of the 1895 title dispute between
the United States and Mexico that arose over a
tract of land in El Paso, Texas, known as “El

by stirring up litigation. (2) Champerty and
maintenance bring money to an individual who
was not personally harmed by the
DEFENDANT.
An attorney found guilty of either champerty or
maintenance will be subject to the payment of
any damages that may have been incurred by
the parties to the lawsuit and to disciplinary
proceedings, which can result in his or her
disbarment.
Whether or not champerty and mainte-
nance exist in a particular instance depends
upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
They apply specifically to cases wherein one
person profits from ano ther person’s recovery
in a lawsuit. If a licensed collection agency
purchases a group of bad accounts from a store,
the agency is buying the right to collect on the
accounts rather than on a particular lawsuit and
is therefore not guilty of champerty. An attorney
who buys a
CHOSE IN ACTION with the sole, SPECIFIC
INTENT
to initiate an action for his or her own
benefit would be guilty of champerty provided
the purchase was made with that intent.
To lend money to an individual who would
not otherwise be able to afford to bring a
lawsuit is not maintenance unless the lender
intends to gain substantially from his loan by

eventually heard a wide variety of cases involv-
ing money. This jurisdiction was founded on
the theory that a creditor who could not collect
a debt would later be less able to pay whatever
he owed to the king.
Chancellor has also been used as the title for
a judge who sits in a court of equity, for the
president of a university, or for the public
official in charge of higher education in some
states.
CHANCERY
The old English court in which the monarch’s
secretary, or Chancellor, began hearing lawsuits
during the fourteenth century.
The decisions rendered there were based on
conscience and fairness rather than on the strict
common-law
FORMS OF ACTION. In the United
States, courts like the old chancery have been
called courts of chancery or courts of equity.
CHARACTER EVIDENCE
Proof or attestations about an individual’s moral
standing, general nature, traits, and reputation in
the general community.
A character witness is an individual who
testifies as to the habits and reputation of
another person. In criminal cases, a
DEFENDANT
might attempt to reduce the possibility that he
or she will be convicted of committing the

To impose a burden, duty, obligation, or lien; to
create a claim against property; to assess; to
demand; to accuse; to instruct a jury on matters of
law. To impose a tax, duty, or trust. To entrust
with responsibilities and duties (e.g., care of
another). In commercial transactions, to bill or
invoice; to purchase on credit. In
CRIMINAL LAW,to
indict or formally accuse.
An encumbrance, lien, or claim; a burden or
load; an obligation or duty; a liability; an
accusation. A person or thing committed to the
care of another. The price of, or rate for, something.
A retail store may attach a
FINANCE CHARGE to
money owed by a customer on a store account.
A charge to the jury is the process whereby a
judge addresses the jury before the
VERDICT.
During the charge, the judge summarizes the
case and gives instructions to the jury concern-
ing such matters as the rules of law that are
applicable to various issues in the case.
A public charge is a person who has been
made a ward of the state who requires public
support due to illness or poverty.
CHARITABLE TRUST
The arrangement by which real or personal
property given by one person is held by another
to be used for the benefit of a class of persons or the

honor of a famous historical figure, and
to beautify a designated village are charitable
purposes aimed, respectively, at fostering kind-
ness to animals, patriotism, and community
well-being.
The definition of charitable purposes is
derived from an old
ENGLISH LAW, the Statute
of Charitable Uses, but has been expanded
throughout the years as new public needs
developed.
Beneficiaries
The class to be benefited in a charitable trust
must be a definite segment of the public. It
must be large enough so that the community in
general is affected by, and interested in, the
enforcement of the trust, yet it cannot encom-
pass the entire human race. Within the class,
however, the specific persons to benefit from
the trust must be indefinite. A trust “for the
benefit of the orphans of American veterans of
the Vietnam conflict” is charitable. The orphans
of such veterans constitute a definite class. The
indefinite persons within the class are the ones
who are ultimately chosen by the trustee to be
paid the benefits. The class is large enough so
that the community is interested in the
enforcement of the trust.
A trust for named persons or a trust for
profit cannot be a charitable trust. A trust “to

BENEFICIARY.
If a trust has both charitable and nonchari-
table purposes and if the maximum amount to
be used for noncharitable purposes can be
determined, the trust fails only with respect to
that amount pertaining to noncharitable pur-
poses, which will be held in a resulting trust by
the trustee for the settlor’s statutory heir or
residuary legatee. The remainder is a valid
charitable trust.
As a general rule, a charitable trust can be
eternal, unlike a private trust, which mus t comply
with the
RULE AGAINST PERPETUITIES, a principle
limiting the duration of a trust. With respect to a
private trust, the designated beneficiary is the
proper person to enforce the trust, but in a
charitable trust, the state attorney general is the
one to enforce it. The settlor, his or her heirs or
personal representatives, the members of the
general public, and possible beneficiaries cannot
maintain a lawsuit for the enforcement of
the trust.
Charitable trusts yield substantial tax ben-
efits to donors, whether in the form of
INCOME
TAX
deductions, tax shelters, or reduced inheri-
tance taxes. Typically under charitable remainder
trusts, immediate income tax deductions can

ness and the support of many worthy causes.
The law favors charities because they pro-
mote goodwill and lessen the government’s
burdens. They are therefore ordinarily exempt
from paying income or property taxes.
Charitable Gifts and Trusts
A charitable gift is something that is donated by
an individual or organization with the intent to
benefit the public or some segment of it as a
whole. It is meant for use by an indefinite
number of people. Similarly, charitable trusts or
public trusts are trusts of religious, political, or
general social interests, or for the relief of
poverty or the advancement of education.
Charities are ordinarily supported by gifts
from donors and most states have set forth
statutes controlling the manner in which funds
are solicited for charities. In addition, the state
will generally require charities to disclose their
financial structure and condition.
Charitable gifts are often
TESTAMENTARY,or
created by will. If there is a problem in
determining the actual donative intent of the
TESTATOR, the court might have to pass on his
or her intent.
CY PRES is a doctrine applied by a
courtsothatitcancarryoutatrustmadeby
will for charitable purposes even when the
testator’s charitable purpose can not be

13.9%
Human
services
10.0%
Arts, culture,
and humanities
10.0%
Public/societal benefit
7.3%
Environmental/wildlife
2.2%
International
3.8%
Gifts to
foundations
10.0%
ILLUSTRATION BY GGS
CREATIVE RESOURCES.
REPRODUCED BY
PERMISSION OF GALE,
A PART OF CENGAGE
LEARNING.
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3
RD E DITION
CHARITIES 331
Charitable Societies and Institutions
To determine whether an institution is charita-
ble, the test is whether its major purpose is to
aid others or to make a profit.
Charitable corporations are

decision Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge,
36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773, illustrated
the shift in politics brou ght about by the
presidency of
ANDREW JACKSON. Nineteenth-
century
FEDERALISM, a dominant political doc-
trine from the time of the drafting of the U.S.
Constitution, favored the protection of private
investments. The Charles River Bridge decision
espoused newly popular Jacksonian political
beliefs, which favored free enterprise. Arguably,
the case altered the course of economic
jurisprudence in the United States.
The facts of Charles River Bridge began in
1650 when the state of Massachusetts granted a
charter to Harvard College (now Harvard
University) to operate for profit a ferry over
the Charles River between Boston and Charles-
town. Later, in 1785, the Massachusetts
Legislature granted a charter to a group of
Charlestown businessmen to build the Charles
River Bridge. These entrepreneurs were to fund
the bridge’s construction and in return the state
would allow them to collect revenue from a
specified toll for the next forty years. As part of
the agreement, the entrepreneurs were to pay an
ANNUITY to Harvard College to replace ferry
profits lost by the building of the new bridge.
The bridge was immediately successful and

charter with the Charles River Bridge proprie-
tors. They maintained that as successors to the
original ferry service charter held by Harvard
College, the Charles River Bridge proprietors had
an implied exclusive right to tolls charged for
crossing the Charles River. Moreover, they said
that judicial policy should protect investments;
without security in investments, entrepreneurs
would not be willing to take risks in technologi-
cal developments such as bridges and railroads.
And this reluctance to take risks would only
prove detrimental to the public.
Lawyers for the Warren Bridge proprietors
countered that no exclusive rights existed for
transportation over the Charles River and that
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
332 CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE V. WARREN BRIDGE
judicial policy should favor technological prog-
ress and free enterprise over the rights of those
investing in private property. After hearing oral
arguments in October 1829, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor
of the Warren Bridge proprietors. The Charles
River Bridge group appealed the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In March 1831 the Supreme Court first
heard arguments in the case. At that time
JOHN
MARSHALL
was chief justice and the Court was

tions for monopolies.
The Charles River Bridge decision received
widespread attention. Hard-line Federalists
disputed the Court’s rationale, insisting that
only by protecting vested property rights would
future financing for transportatio n technology
be ensured. And although railroads were not at
issue in Charles River Bridge, many historians
believe that the Taney Court placed great faith
in the future of railroads in the United States,
and in rendering its opinion was attempting
to facilitate their growth. There is little doubt
among legal scholars that Charles River Bridge
signified the in troduction of Jacksonian politics
into U.S. jurisprudence.
FURTHER READINGS
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. (13 U.S.) 420
(1837). 2005. Michaelariens.com Web site. Available
online at http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/
cases/charlesriver.htm; website home page: http://
www.michaelariens.com (accessed August 29, 2009).
McBride, Alex. 2006. “Supreme Court History: The First
Hundred Years, Landmark Cases,” The Supreme Court.
New York: Educational Broadcasting Corporation.
Available online at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supreme
court/antebellum/landmark_charles.htm; website home
page: http://www.pbs.org (accessed August 29, 2009).
Mensel, Robert E. 1994. “Privilege Against Public Right:
A Reappraisal of the Charles River Bridge Case.”
Duquesne Law Review 3.

justice. As a result, many criticized him for
neglecting his judicial responsibilities in favor of
his political ambitions. Despite his
EXTRAJUDICIAL
activities, Chase helped to navigate the Supreme
Court through the dangerous political waters of
Reconstruction, the period following the Civil
War when the country attempted to rebuild
itself and readmit the Southern states to the
Union, preserving the Court’spowerswhena
Republican–dominated Congress sought to con-
trol both the presidency and the Supreme Court.
As chief justice, Chase presided over the 1868
IMPEACHMENT trial of President ANDREW JOHNSON.
NO MORE SLAVE
STATES
, AND NO
MORE SLAVE
TERRITORY
.LET THE
SOIL OF OUR
EXTENSIVE DOMAIN
BE KEPT FREE
.
—SALMON PORTLAND
CHASE
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND 333
Chase was an ardent opponent of SLAVERY his entire
life, and in his last years on the Court he fought

WILLIAM WIRT. He passed the bar exam
and returned to Cincinnati to set up a legal
practice. In Cincinnati, Chase’s personal life was
clouded by tragedy. He lost three wives between
1835 and 1852. He had one daughter by each of
his last two wives. He remained single for the
last part of his life and was a devoted father to
his two daughters.
Chase strongly opposed slavery from his
early years, a position that owed much to his
deeply religious outlook. In Ohio, he was
nicknamed the Attorney General for Runaway
Negroes for his
LEGAL REPRESENTATION of aboli-
tionists who had aided runaway slaves from
Kentucky. He even took two of these cases to the
U.S. Supreme Court—Jones v. Van Zandt, 46 U.
S. (5 How.) 215, 12 L. Ed. 122 (1847), and Moore
v. Illinois, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 13, 14 L. Ed. 306
(1852)—both of which he lost. About his
nickname, Chase commented that he “never
refused … help to any person black or white, and
that he liked the office nonetheless because there
were neither fees nor salary connected with it.”
In 1849 Chase was elected to the U.S. Senate
as a member of the Free-Soil party, which
Salmon P. Chase.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Salmon Portland Chase 1808–1873
1808 Born,

Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery
1868 Presided over the impeachment trial of President Johnson;
Texas v. White upheld the general aspects of Reconstruction
▼▼
▼▼
18001800
18501850
18751875
19001900
18251825
◆
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
334 CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND
sought to keep new states in the west free of
slavery. In the Senate, he and CHARLES SUMNER
became leading spokesme n for the antislavery
movement. He gained renown through his
opposition to the 1854
KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT,
which allowed each territory to conduct a
popular vote deciding w hether it would permit
slavery. Shortly there after, he helped to found
the antislavery
REPUBLICAN PARTY, and in 1855 he
was elected governor of Ohio. He was consid-
ered for the 1856 Republican presidential
nomination but was passed over, and in
February 1860 he was reelected to the U.S.
Senate. In May of the same year, he sought the
presidential nomination at the Republican

resigned from the cabinet.
Despite their differences, Lincoln admired
Chase, and in December 1864 he nominated
Chase to succeed
ROGER B. TANEY as chief justice
of the U.S. Supreme Court. He nominated
Chase with the expectation that Chase would
sustain two extraordinary measures taken by the
Union during the war—the
EMANCIPATION of the
slaves and the issuance of paper money to repay
debt. Both measures had caused great contro-
versy, and as a result many Americans had lost
confidence in the federal government.
Chase joined a Court with only three other
justices who consistently supported Republican
positions, Justices
DAVID DAVIS, NOAH H. SWAYNE,
and
SAMUEL F. MILLER, all appointed by Lincoln.
The Court was sharply divided over the various
issues surrounding Reconstruction. The post–
Civil War crisis deepened when Lincoln was
assassinated on April 14, 1865, and Vice
President Andrew Johnson became president.
Chase urged a moderate, conciliatory stance
toward the defeated South, a stance that
eventually alienated him from the Radical
Republicans, a faction of the Republican party
that sought to impose strict military measures

decision,
EX PARTE Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2,
18 L. Ed. 284 (1866), Chase voted with the
Court in challenging Congress over Reconstruc-
tion. The Court held that Congress could not
authorize military trials where civil courts were
still operating. The majority opinion warned of
the military’s “gross
USURPATION of power”—a
direct challenge to the Reconstruction Acts
passed by Congress. However, in later decisions
Chase voted to uphold congressional laws
pertaining to Reconstruction. In the 1867 Test
OATH cases—Cummi ngs v. Missouri, 71 U.S.
(4 Wall.) 277, 18 L. Ed. 356, and Ex parte
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND 335
Garland, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333, 18 L. Ed. 366—
Chase disagreed with the Court’s decision to
strike down laws requiring that priests and
lawyers swear oaths of loyalty to the Union. In
his dissenting opinion, joined by Chase, Justice
Miller declared that no punishment was
inflicted by requiring such an oath and that
Congress could impose such requirements.
Chase considered
TEXAS V. WHITE, 74 U.S. (7
Wall.) 700, 19 L. Ed. 227 (1868) to be the most
important case of his Supreme Court career.
Chase, writing the Court’s opinion, upheld the

Republican–dominated Congress had voted to
bring impeachment proceedings against John-
son after he dismissed one of their favorite
members of his cabinet, Secretary of War
Stanton. The Senate sat as a court of impeach-
ment with Chase presiding as judge. Chase
frustrated Radical Republican aims by sticking
to procedural rules and helping to bring about
Johnson’s acquittal, which passed the Senate by
one vote. The public acclaim occasioned by his
handling of the impeachment trial led Chase to
make ano ther try at the presidency in 1868.
That time, however, Chase made known his
desire to run as a Democratic candidate, largely
because his moderate positions toward the
South had endeared him to Democrats. His
efforts failed.
Although the Supreme Court under Chase’s
leadership rarely questioned congressional Re-
construction measures after 1867, it did declare
other federal legislation unconstitutional.
Whereas before 1864 the Court had overturned
acts of Congress only twice—in
MARBURY V.
MADISON, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60
(1803), and
DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. (19
How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857)—between 1864
and 1873 it voided ten pieces of congressional
legislation. These decisions included the first of

policy determined there are concluded here.
ULYSSES S. GRANT won the presidential election
of 1868, and from that time onward, the power
of Radical Republicanism began to wane.
Grant’s appointments made the Court a more
conservative body. In the
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES,
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873),
Chase dissented from the Court’s narrow
interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
which was passed in 1868 and sought to protect
the rights of African Americans against
GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION
336 CHASE, SALMON PORTLAND
infringements by state legislation. In its Slaughter-
House decision, the Court held that the
Fourteenth Amendment’s
PRIVILEGES AND IMMU-
NITIES
Clause protected only a few select rights of
national citizenshi p, such as the right to travel.
The Court did not interpret the amendment as
guaranteeing more fundamental rights, such as
the right to vote. Chase objected that the
Court’s opinion jeopardized newly won free-
doms for African Americans. It would take
another century before the Court would reverse
this narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Chase suffered a series of crippling strokes

Hyman, Harold Melvin. 1997. The Reconstruction Justice of
Salmon P. Chase. Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.
Niven, John. 1995. Salmon P. Chase: A Biography. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press.
CROSS REFERENCE
Loyalty Oath.
v
CHASE, SAMUEL
Samuel Chase served as a justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court from 1796 to 1811. In 1804 the
U.S. House of Representatives voted to
IMPEACH
Chase. However, the Senate did not uphold the
House’s action and Chase continued to serve on
the Court until his death. Chase remains the
only justice who has been the subject of
IMPEACHMENT proceedings. Chase’s decisions set
several precedents for the Supreme Court,
among them opinions establishing the suprem-
acy of federal treaties over state laws and the
establishment of
JUDICIAL REVIEW, which is the
Court’s power to void legislation it deems
unconstitutional, a power that makes the
judiciary one of the three primary branches of
the federal government (the other two branches
being Congress and the president).
Known for his fiery and partisan manner,
Chase was an active politician for most of his
life. Before his career as a judge Chase served in