Town of Castleton v. Langdon

A conveyance of land to a town, for the purpose, as expressed, of having a school house erected and a school taught thereon for the benefit of the youth of the town, for a terra specified, of itself imports, in its object, a sufficient consideration to support the conveyance. An action of trespass quare clausum fregit, for encroachments upon land so conveyed, may be maintained in the name of the town. If the town, in such case, comply with the implied conditions of the grant, by erecting upon the land a school house in which a school should be kept for a reasonable proportion of the time, they will not forfeit the land, nor any part of it, although they should use that portion of it, not wanted for the ! accommodation of the school house and necessary out buildings, for pur- ■’ poses no.t connected with the main object in view, — as if they should lease it for purposes of cultivation, or building for- a fire engine, or hayscales, should be put upon it, or it should be used by an adjacent land owner as a passage way, or it should be used by those attending meetingat an adjacent meeting house for the purpose of accommodating their teams, or a corner of a meeting house were allowed to rest upon it, without dissent, or a room, in the same building occupied as a school house, should be finished and used by the town for the purpose of holding town and other public meetings. Neither would the town, in such case, forfeit the land, by allowing the building standing thereon to be used for a number of years as an Academy, or county grammar school, under a charter from the state locating the school at that particular spot. Such conveyances are always construed liberally, in support of the object contemplated. “ Although the county court may have submitted to the jury the determination of that which is properly a question of law, yet if the finding of the jury-is in accordance with the views of this court as to the law, the verdict will not be disturbed.

Trespass quare clausum, fregit. The premises were described in the declaration as an acre of land in the village in Castleton, with a town house standing thereon; and the plaintiffs alleged, that the defendant entered upon the land and placed obstructions upon and around it, and broke and entered the town house, and hindered and obstructed the plaintiffs in the use of it. Plea, the general issue, and trial by jury, April Term, 1846, — A. L. Brown, assistant judge of Rutland county court, presiding. On trial the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove the commission of the alleged acts of trespass by the defendant; and ajso gave evidence tending to prove the following facts. On the twenty seventh day of March, 1786, Samuel Moulton conveyed by deed the premises in question to the inhabitants of the town of Castleton, for the consideration, as expressed, of love and good will, for the term of five hundred years, “ to erect, build and set up a school house and to improve said land for the benevolent purpose of teaching and instructing a school on said land,” — and with this clause, — “ upon which lot of land the said lessees propose to build a school house, and to improve for the purpose aforesaid, and for no other purpose.” Shortly after the execution of this deed the plaintiffs entered into the possession of the premises and erected thereon a school house, having a swing partition, so that it could be occupied for holding religious meetings and town meetings; and it was so occupied during the life of the lessor,- and it appeared that he assisted in erecting the house. In 1787, which was the year succeeding the erection of this house, the representative from Casileton, in the legislature of the state, procured the Rutland County Grammar School to be located upon this lot of land by its charter of incorporation, — the charter containing a provision, that the county of Rutland should not be at any cost or charge in completing or repairing the house. The meeting house in Castleton was built in 1790, and subsequently town and religious meetings ceased to beheld in the school house. The school house was burned in December, 1790; and Moulton died in February, 1791. Subsequently another school house was built upon the same land. In 1805 an act of the legislature was passed, “ confirming a Grammar School in the county of Rutland,” and locating it at this house, so long as the in? habitants of Castleton should keep the same, or any other house at the same place, in good repair, for the purpose of accommodating such school, to the acceptance of the county court for such county. This school was organized and a building was erected for it upon these premises, and the school continued to be taught there until about the year 1836, when it was removed to another building, not standing on this land. In March, 1836, the town voted to finish a portion of the building, which had been occupied by the grammar school, for a town room; and the first floor was finished, and was occupied by the town, until the commencement of this suit, and for the purposes of town and village convenience generally, for lectures, singing-schools, political meetings and exhibitions of science and art; and the second floor was occupied for a school room. It farther appeared, that some hay scales were erected upon the land in question, eight or ten years previous to the commencement of this action, but without any authority from the town, and were removed after remaining there a few years. A building for a fire engine was also erected upon the premises, but without authority from the town, and remained there at the time of the commission, by the defendant, of the acts complained of by the plaintiffs. The town also leased a part of the land for the purpose of cultivation, and the rent, with the exception of one year, was paid into the town treasury for the use of schools ; — and that one year the rent was paid into the town treasury without the particular purpose being designated, for which it was to be used; although, after the same had been paid in, it appeared that one of the selectmen ordered it to be treated as paid in for the use of schools. No evidence was offered, to show that any part of the money so paid in had been, in fact, expended for the use of schools. For a number of years Dr. Theodore Woodward used a portion of these premises for a passage way to and from his buildings. One corner (about eleven inches) of the Methodist meeting house was erected on this land ; and the town took no steps to cause this to be removed. A portion of this land, also, was used by the congregation attending at this meeting house, for the purpose of fastening their horses and placing their carriages; — it did not appear, that the town had ever received any compensation for such use of the premises, or for the infringement upon the premises by the erection of the meeting house." It appeared, that the wife of the defendant was the grand-daughter of Samuel Moulton, the grantor, and that her father, who was the son of Samuel Moulton, had deceased previous to' the commission, by the defendant, of the acts complained of by the plaintiffs. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury, that the plaintiffs derived no title to the land in question, except from the .lease of Samuel Moulton ; that what was the nature and extent of that title must be ascertained from a legal construction of that instrument ; that the lease only gave the inhabitants of the town of Castleton the right to erect a school house upon the land, and to improve the land for the benevolent purpose of teaching ’and instructing a school upon the land, and for no other purpose; that if the town used the land, or allowed it to be used, for any other purpose, it worked a forfeiture of the grant; that the land was not given as a school fund, but as a school house site, or location, and if used by the town, or allowed to be used,' for any other purpose, it would work a forfeiture of the grant, even though the rents were applied for the use and support of schools; that the various uses of the land before mentioned, as for the location of hay scales and an engine house, the use of it for a passage way by Dr. Woodward, the use of it by the Methodist congregation, the location of part of the Methodist meeting house upon it, and the proceedings of the town in March, 1836, and subsequent thereto, as proved, were, as matter of law, inconsistent with the terms of the lease and worked a forfeiture; and that this suit could not, in any event, be maintained in the name of the town of Castleton. The defendant also requested the court to decide, as matter of law, what acts and uses were inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, and to instruct the jury, that, if they found such acts, or uses to be proved, there was a forfeiture of th.e grant. But the court declined so to charge; but did instruct the jury, that the suit could be maintained by the town of Castleton ; that if the jury should find, that the acts of the town, and the uses to which they put the land, were inconsistent with the provisions of the lease, there was a forfeiture, and their verdict should be for the defendant, otherwise for the plaintiffs ; that the lease should be construed liberally for the plaintiffs; and that, if the plaintiffs had leased portions of the premises for other purposes than the use and support of schools, but the rent received therefor had been applied for that use, it would not work a forfeiture of the grant. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs. Exceptions by defendant. The language used in the lease shows a clear and explicit intention on the part of the donor, to give permission to improve the land for. the purpose of a school house, and for no other purpose. We do not contend, that, because the lessees may have used the building erected for a school house for a mere temporary purpose, not inconsistent with its primary use, such occupancy would work a forfeiture ; but whenever they do permanently appropriate the land to any other purpose, even though they appropriate the proceeds to the use and support of schools, they are without the condition imposed by the donee, and their use, right and privilege ceases. The charge of the court was clearly erroneous, in informing the jury, that if the plaintiffs had leased a portion of the premises for purposes other than the support of schools, it would not work a forfeiture of the lease ; and also, in not instructing the jury what acts, in law, and as matter of law, were inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiffs under the lease; and in holding that the town of Castleton could maintain this action, The town of Castleton became possessed, under the lease, of an estate for years" in the premises. The lease was founded upon a sufficient consideration, and was made to a sufficient lessee; Inh. of Worcester v. Eaton, 13 Mass. 371; it was accepted by the town, and the premises were appropriated to the use specified, and the use has been kept up to the present time.- There was, and could have been, no forfeiture of the rights which Jhe plaintiffs obtained under the lease. A school has always been kept on the place, and still is. None of the acts complained of amount to a" misuse, even ; for the town are not liable for and cannot be prejudiced by the unauthorized acts of others by their intru.sions. The avails of that portion, which could not be used for a school house, were appropriated for schools in town generally. The permitting town or religious meetings to be held upon the premises was no interference with the use designated in the lease. Jackson v. Pike, 9 Cow. 69. The estate granted by the lease was not conditional ; it was a grant of land to be used for a particular purpose; and even* if there had been a misuse, the estate, or interest, in the town, or public, would not have been thereby forfeited, but recourse should have been had to chancery, — which would have compelled the grantees, or their agents, to have appropriated the premises to their proper use. The lease reserves no rights of re-entry for the non-performance of any trust; and no condition is to be construed to defeat an estate, unless it be introduced by formal and technical words, as sub conditions, &c., unless there be an express provision for re-entry. Co. Lit. 328-9. Bac. Abr., Condition A. No case can be found, where an estate like this has been adjudged forfeited. 2 Bl. Com. 268. If these acts would work thus, it was waived by the grantor’s aiding in erecting the first school house for a common school, and for town and religious purposes; and these acts made a dedication by Moulton, aside from the lease.