Burdette v. Jones
Decision Date | 30 January 1947 |
Court | Ohio Court of Common Pleas |
Parties | BURDETTE et al., Members of Board of Education, v. JONES et al. |
72 N.E.2d 152
BURDETTE et al., Members of Board of Education,
v.
JONES et al.
Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Tuscarawas County.
Jan. 30, 1947.
Action by Harry Burdette and others, as Members of the Board of Education of Rush Township, Tuscarawas County, Ohio, against Frank L. Jones and others for a declaratory judgment.
Judgment rendered for defendants.
[72 N.E.2d 152]
A. B. Cunningham, Pros. Atty., of New Philadelphia, for plaintiffs.
[72 N.E.2d 153]
J. Alvin O'Donnell and Charles E. LaPorte, both of Uhrichsville, for defendants.
LAMNECK, Judge.
This is an action for a declaratory judgment in which the plaintiffs, as the members of the Board of Education of Rush Township in this county, ask the Court to construe a deed of conveyance to said board dated June 29, 1881, from Jacob Houck and Margaret J. Houck for 144 square rods of land on which a schoolhouse was constructed and where a school was conducted until the spring of 1930. The plaintiffs also ask the Court to determine whether or not they have the right to sell and dispose of the building erected on said premises.
The defendants who refuse the plaintiffs admittance to said building, have demurred to the petition on the ground that it does not state a cause of action and for the further reason that the statute of limitations has run as to the commencement of this action.
The pertinent part of said deed reads as follows:
‘Witnesseth that the said parties of the first part in Consideration of Five Dollars to them duly paid before the delivery of hereof have bargained and sold and by these presents do grant and convey to the party of the second part, its successors and assigns as long as the same shall be used for school purposes, the following described premises: * * * with the appurtenances and all the estate, title and interest of the said parties of the first part herein, and the said parties of the first part do hereby covenant and agree with the said party of the second part that at the time of the delivery hereof the said parties of the first part were the lawful owners of the premises above granted and seized thereof in fee simple absolute and that they will warrant and defend the above granted premises in the quiet and peaceful possession of the said party of the second part and its successors and assigns during the time above mentioned.’
In the numerous cases that have been decided by the courts throughout the United States on the subject of conditions or limitations contained in a deed, it is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J. M. Carey And Brother v. City of Casper
... ... a provision for reversion or forfeiture for violation of the ... condition. Burdette v. Jones, 72 N.E.2d 152, (Ohio) ... The ... authorities which hold that the mere statement in a deed of ... the purpose for which the ... ...
-
Buttars v. Buttars
... ... Parson, 233 Ga. 845, 213 S.E.2d 693 (1975); Pure Oil Co. v. Miller-McFarland Drilling Co., 376 Ill. 486, 34 N.E.2d 854 (1941); Burdette v. Jones, 34 Ohio Op. 488, 72 N.E.2d 152 (1947) ... 5 One of the classic examples of a special limitation at common law was "till default shall be ... ...
-
Walker v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., L-90-265
... ... Burdette v. Jones (1947), 34 O.O. 488 [72 N.E.2d 152], paragraph one of the syllabus; May, supra, paragraph two of the syllabus; Schurch v. Harraman (1933), ... ...
-
Miller v. Village of Brookville, 97706.
...§ 3699 as set out on page 205, in Wineland on Municipal Corporations. Counsel for plaintiffs rely upon Burdette v. Jones, Ohio Com.Pl., 72 N.E.2d 152, 34 O.O. 488, decided January 30, 1947. The court says: ‘The granting clause of a deed to a Board of Education which ‘bargained and sold, and......