Bd. of Supervisors of Warren County v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 30 September 1870
• Citation: 56 Ill. 111,1870 WL 6485
• Parties: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WARREN COUNTYv.AZRO PATTERSON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

56 Ill. 111

1870 WL 6485 (Ill.)

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WARREN COUNTY

v.AZRO PATTERSON et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1870.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Warren county; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding. The opinion states the case.

Mr. WILLIAM MARSHALL and Messrs. FROST & TUNNICLIFF, for the appellants.

The board had full power, under the statute, to sell the property, which they had originally purchased with a view to using the same exclusively for the erection of a court house thereon. The board has all the power originally conferred upon the county court and upon the county commissioners' court, before the adoption of the township organization, as well as the power conferred expressly upon the board of supervisors under the township organization act. Scates' Statutes, 337, § 4, subd. 1 and 4; also, p. 299, § 15, p. 302, §§ 35 and 36; The People v. Thurber, 13 Ill. 554-559; Green v. Wardwell, 17 Id. 278-281.

It is claimed, that the words following the grant and description of the property, “to be used by said party of the second part for a court house, jail, and any other necessary county buildings,” restrict the rights of the county, and the board of supervisors, as its agent, to the use of the property for the erection of county buildings thereon, and exclude their right to use it for any other purpose. This is not the fair intendment from the language used. It simply designates the purpose for which the property was purchased, a legitimate public object, which warrants the board in making the purchase, and it imposes no obligation upon the board forever to devote the premises to this use, or to devote them to it at all, should the exigencies of the county or the public interests require that some other use should be made of the property; but, if this is the import of this clause in the deed, it is of no avail, for the simple reason, that it is repugnant to the words of the grant, and hence, by the settled rule of construction, applicable to deeds, it is utterly void. 4 Kent's Com. (marginal paging) 131-468; 2 Black. Com. (marginal paging) 298; Willard on Real Estate and Cont. 103, 104; 2 Washb. on Real Prop. 639-646; 2 Bacon's Abridg. 555; 1 Chitty's Pl. (marginal paging) 3; 1 Washb. on Real Prop. (marginal paging) 459; Crawford v. Chitman, 17 Ohio, 452; Baulos v. Ash, 19 Ill. 187, 188; Hornbeck v. Westbrook, 9 Johns. 74; 1 Kern. 315-322, 323.

Mr. JOHN J. GLENN, for the appellees.

In construing deeds, as other writings, courts must seek to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the parties, and for that purpose they may and will take notice of attendant circumstances, and by them determine the intentions of the parties. Hadden v. Shoutz, 15 Ill. 582; Williams v. Claiborne, 1 S. & M. Ch. 364; Woods v. N. M. Comp., 5 N. H. 473. The evidence in this case clearly establishes these facts: The board of supervisors purchased the premises for the purpose of erecting thereon a court house and other county buildings; the appellees paid their portion of the purchase money, with the understanding and agreement they were to be used for that purpose; that the negotiations for the premises would have failed if the clause “ for the purpose of erecting thereon a court house, jail, and any other necessary county buildings,” had not been inserted in the contract at the time of the purchase; and the appellees would not have paid any part of the purchase money of the premises, if they had been informed the premises were not to be used for that purpose.

The clause in the contract and deed “ for the purpose of erecting thereon a court house, jail and any other necessary county buildings,” is a condition subsequent. And if the board of supervisors fail to use it for that purpose, or attempt to sell and dispose of it, they thereby forfeit all claim to that portion of the purchase money paid by appellees, and must refund it to them. Police Jury v. Reeves, 18 Martin Lou. 221; S. C., 3 Cond. R. 818; Pickle v. McKissick,16 Penn. St. 140; Hayden v. Stoughten, 5 Pick. 534; Grissom v. Hill, 17 Ark. 483; Lessees of Sperry v. Pond, 5 Ohio, 242; Hefner et al. v. Yount et al., 8 Blackf. 455; Scott v. Stipe et al., 12 Ind. 74; Castleton v. Langdon, 19 Vt. 217; Kirk v. King, 3 Barr, 440; Leach v. Leach, 4 Ind. 628; Broadway v. State, 8 Blackf. 290.

The clause inserted in the deed and contract immediately following the description of the premises “for a court house,” etc., was inserted for the protection of the appellees. And, although they are not mentioned in the deed or contract, it is peculiarly the province of a court of chancery to see that this stipulation is carried out or their money is refunded to them, and, especially in this case, when their interest is held in trust. Leach v. Leach, 4 Ind. 628; Wallace v. Associate Reformed Church, 10 Id. 162; Scott v. Stipe et al., 12 Id. 76; Bleeker v. Bingham, 3 Paige, 249; Kerr on Injunctions, 97; Hills v. Miller, 3 Paige, 256; Trustees of Watertown v. Cowen, 4 Id. 515.

The consideration that induced the appellees to contribute their money to purchase the block, was, that the county would erect thereon county buildings of magnificent proportions and fine architectural beauty, and thereby increase the value of their property; which is a sufficient consideration to enable them to maintain this suit, and one which both courts of law and equity recognize. Robertson v. March et al., 3 Scam. 198; Cross v. Pinkneyville Mill Co., 17 Ill. 57; Pryor v. Cain, 25 Id. 294; Thompson v. Supervisors, etc., 40 Id. 385; Stone v. Great Western Oil Co., 41 Id. 96; McClure v. Wilson, 43 Id. 362; Barrow v. Richard, 8 Paige, 358.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill in equity, in the Warren circuit court, exhibited by Azro Patterson and others against the board of supervisors of that county, the scope and object of which was to enjoin defendants from selling or disposing of block 16 in the city of Monmouth, on the allegation that the block in question was purchased as a site for a court house and other county buildings, and to which complainants had contributed the sum of $750, part of the purchase price thereof. It appears this block of ground was the property of Mary W. Collins, and that the board of supervisors, in September, 1867, were negotiating with her and her husband, John W. Collins, for its purchase, and that the price demanded by Collins was $6,250. This the board declined to give, but were willing to pay $5,500 for the block. The complainants, feeling a deep interest in this matter, agreed among themselves, if the board would buy the property, they would make up the difference between the price asked and that offered, being $750. The block was purchased and conveyed to the county for the expressed consideration of $5,500.

In the agreement for the sale, which bears date September 11, 1867, there is this clause: The party of the first part “agree to sell to the said party of the second part, block number 16, in the city of Monmouth, in the said county of Warren, with appurtenances thereunto belonging, for court house and other county buildings.”

It is alleged in the bill of complaint that a proposition was made by the said defendants, that if the complainants would furnish the amount in difference on the purchase of the block, they, the defendants, would purchase it for the purpose of erecting thereon a court house and other buildings; and complainants being interested in property in the neighborhood of this block, and anxious for the erection of county buildings upon it, by which the value of their property would be enhanced, acceded to the proposition of the defendants, and, through one Hiram Baldwin, thereupon executed a promissory note to Mary W. Collins for the sum of $750, at ten per cent, payable thirty days after date, of which $710 had been paid at the time of filing the bill of complaint.

It is then alleged that the defendants had caused the clerk of the county court of Warren county to publish an advertisement in the county newspapers, that the county would receive sealed bids, to be opened at the meeting of the board on the second Monday of September, 1868, for the sale of this block, or for one or more lots thereof, by which the erection of a court house and other county buildings would be prevented; and the bill further charges that such sale is proposed to be made purposely to avoid the erection of such buildings, in fraud of the rights of complainants, and to their irreparable injury.

It is further charged, that complainants were especially invited and requested by the legal agents of the county to contribute their money toward the purchase of this block, to be purchased and used by the county, for the purpose of erecting upon it county buildings; and it is further charged, that the defendants do not possess the statutory power to sell and convey this block, or any portion of it, nor do they, by the terms of the grant to them, possess such power, but if such a colorable sale should be made, the erection of public buildings thereon would be prevented, and complainants defrauded of their money.

An injunction was prayed for to restrain the sale, which was granted.

The defendants in their answer deny any proposition to complainants of the...