Norris v. Trustees of the Abingdon Academy

The Legislature (by the act of 1829, ch. 37,) incorporated the trustees of an Academy, and afterwards upon the application of such trustees passed a resolution granting them an annual donation, “ provided that the said trustees shall previously have conveyed and secured to the State for the use of the said school, the entire estate and effects of the institution derived under the act of 1829 or otherwise, and in that event, one hundred dollars out of the said donation to be applied towards the' extinguishment of the debts due on account of the corporation, and for the completion of the buildings, and the purchase of the necessary furniture and implements.” This donation was accepted by a majority of the corporators, and a deed according with the resolution executed to the State. By the act of 1831, the Legislature passed an act, vesting the goverment of said Academy in a new board of trustees. Heed, that the deed to the State was no dissolution of the corporation, and that the act of 1831, ch. 219, was in violation of its chartered rights, and void underthe prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States.

Appeal from Harford County court. This was an action of Replevin instituted by the appellees against the appellant on the 1st of June 1832, for the corporate seal, and record book of the stockholders and trustees of the Academy. The case was submitted to the County court upon the following statement of facts :— The General Assembly of Maryland, at December session, 1829, ch. 37, passed an act, incorporating the trustees of the Abingdon Academy; and at the following session the said trustees made application to th’at. body for a donation to said Academy, upon which application, the Legislature passed a resolution granting an annual donation to them of $300, “ provided that said trustees shall previously have conveyed and secured to the State, for the use of the said school, the entire estate, and effects of the institution, derived under the act of December session, 1829, ch. 37, or otherwise; and in that event one hundred dollars out of the said donation, to be applied towards the extinguishment of the debts, due on account of the corporation, and for the completion of the buildings, and the purchase of the necessary furniture and implements.” The following proceedings were then adopted by the trustees of said Academy, in relation to the acceptance of the donation, upon the terms proposed by the resolution : “June 16th, 1831. The trustees met agreeably to public notice, (present nine of their number,) when on motion it was resolved, unanimously, that the resolution passed by the Legislature of Maryland, giving an annual donation of $300, for the advancement of Abingdon Academy, under certain provisions, be recommended by tbe board of trustees to the stockholders of said Academy for their acceptance, and that a meeting be called to ascertain their will by vote. In pursuance of this resolution, a meeting was called on the 13th of the following month, (July,) when on counting the votes of the stockholders, there appeared 85 votes in favor of accepting the donation of the State, on the terms proposed, and 61 votes against it. On the 9th of September 1831, the trustees in compliance with the determination of the stockholders, executed to the State of Maryland a deed under the corporate seal of all the property and estate of the Academy of every description, “ to have and to hold the same, and every part and parcel thereof, for the use of the said school, and to, and for, no other intent or purpose whatsoever.” And thereupon the trustees received from the treasurer, the donation granted by said resolution. j Afterwards at December session 1831, ch. 219, the Legislature passed an act vesting the government of said Academy in a new board of trustees, which last act the plaintiffs in this case (now appellees) insist is unconstitutional and void, and they claiming under the act of 1829, ch. 37, have brought this suit against the secretary of the new board, to recover the personal property belonging to said institution. Upon this statement it was agreed, that if the court should be of opinion that the Legislature had the power to pass the act of 1831, the judgment should be for the defendant, if otherwise for the plaintiffs. The County court gave judgment fox the plaintiffs, and the defendant thereupon prosecuted an appeal to this court.