Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. City of Keene
Citation | 74 N.H. 148,65 A. 826 |
Parties | ASHUELOT NAT. BANK v. CITY OF KEENE. |
Decision Date | 05 February 1907 |
Court | Supreme Court of New Hampshire |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Cheshire County.
Writ of entry for the possession of land by the Ashuelot National Bank against the city of Keene. There was a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff excepted to the denial of a motion for a verdict in its favor and to the verdict for defendant. Judgment for defendant
May 7, 1890, Henry O. Coolidge, then a resident of Keene, made the following proposition to the city: On the same day the city accepted the foregoing proposition by the following joint resolution: May 12, 1890, Coolidge conveyed the premises to the city by warranty deed containing, after the description of the land, the following: The city accepted the deed, thereupon took possession of the premises, and has ever since held the same. Coolidge died February 29, 1896, leaving a will in which he made the plaintiff in this action residuary legatee. The will contains no specific reference to the demanded premises. March 17, 1904, a reasonable time having elapsed within which the city should have devoted the realty to the purposes specified in the deed, the plaintiff entered upon the demanded premises for breach of condition and made demand upon the city to deliver up possession, which it refused to do. Emily B. Coolidge, widow of Henry O., is living. There was no waiver by the plaintiff of any right it possessed to enforce a forfeiture. The Perry place, so called, named in the proposition and joint resolution, is the land described in the writ in this action and therein demanded.
Charles H. Hersey, for plaintiff. John E. Allen, for defendant.
The contention of the plaintiff is that the land was conveyed to the city upon the condition that the grantor and his heirs might enter and enforce a forfeiture if the city failed within a reasonable time to devote the property to the purposes specified in the deed, and that as the city has failed in this respect, the plaintiff, as residuary legatee under the will of Mr. Coolidge, can enforce the forfeiture the same as he might have done if living. This contention is based upon the assumption that the land was conveyed subject to a condition subsequent, and upon the legal proposition that a right of entry before breach of condition is an interest in land and assignable. If the land was conveyed upon condition subsequent, it is at least doubtful...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Oregon & C.R. Co.
...... See,. also, Trustees of Union College v. City of New York, . 173 N.Y. 38, 65 N.E. 853, 93 Am.St.Rep. ...527, 12 Sup.Ct. 308, 35. L.Ed. 1099; and Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. City of Keene, . 74 N.H. 148, 65 A. 826, 9 ......
-
Richards v. Wilson
...established and maintained by the Winona people rather than by some one else was not the essence of the gift. Ashuelot Nt. Bank v. Keene, 74 N. H. 148, 65 Atl. 826, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 758; Codman v. Brigham, supra; Franklin v. Hastings, supra; Brigham v. Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, supra; ......
-
Richards v. Wilson
...... land in the city of Indianapolis known as the "United. States Arsenal ...Wilson, President Capitol. National Bank; Charles Latham, Cashier Fletcher National. Bank; John ... between the parties. Hawkins, Receiver, v. Fourth Nat. Bank (1898), 150 Ind. 117, 127, 49 N.E. 957; Major v. ... Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. Keene (1907), 74 N.H. 148, 65 A. 826, 9 L. ......
-
Brahmey v. Rollins
...as one when by another construction the meaning intended by the parties is more probably the real one. Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. Keene, 74 N. H. 148, 65 A. 826, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 758, and cases The instrument undertook to provide that creditors should have no rights, without contemplating the ......