Final answer:
The question involves the legal concept of 'privity of contract' within the realm of Law, specifically related to a case involving First American National Bank of Nashville and Chicken System of America. The case likely discusses the contractual rights and obligations of the parties involved, echoing broader historical issues of federal supremacy and constitutional interpretation in the operation of federally chartered versus state chartered banks.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legal concept of 'privity of contract' pertains to the relationship that exists between the parties involved in a contract and determines who has the legal rights to enforce the terms of the contract, seek remedies for breaches, or experience its burdens or benefits. In the case of First American National Bank of Nashville v. Chicken System of America, the details of which are not provided, the issue likely centers around whether a party not originally part of the contract could have rights or obligations under it. The landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland, which involved the Second Bank of the United States, established the federal government's implied powers under the 'necessary and proper' clause of the Constitution, highlighting the principle of federal supremacy over state actions that impede legitimate federal operations, an example being banks operated under federal charter.
In 1816, after the War of 1812, the perceived necessity for a national bank to aid in economic development led to the chartering of the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), with certain benefits accruing to the government, signifying the government's direct involvement and interest in the bank's operation. Challenges to the constitutionality of such national ventures, including the federal government's involvement in the BUS and its reach across state lines, were debated, and the Supreme Court's interpretations became primary in subsequent legal considerations regarding the powers and operations of state chartered banks vis-à-vis federally chartered institutions such as the BUS.
Instances like the Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Texas Pacific Railway Cos. decision of 1897 indicate how rate regulations, viewed as limits on profits, invoked the Fourteenth Amendment protection against the deprivation of property without due process of law, thereby interfacing constitutionality with business operations and the rights of entities involved in commercial agreements.