City Nat. Bank v. City of Bridgeport

• Decision Date: 25 July 1929
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CITY NAT. BANK ET AL. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT ET AL.

147 A. 181

109 Conn. 529

CITY NAT. BANK ET AL. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 25, 1929

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Earnest C. Simpson Judge.

Action to settle title by the City National Bank, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Richard Hubbell, deceased, and administrator de bonis non cum testamento annexo of the estate of Amos Hubbell, deceased, against the City of Bridgeport and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant United Congregational Society of Bridgeport and another appeal. No error.

Action to settle title to certain real estate situated in the city of Bridgeport, brought to the superior court in Fairfield county, where a demurrer of defendants the United Congregational Society of Bridgeport and the First Congregational Society of Bridgeport to the complaint was overruled, and the case was later tried to the court. Judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the above-mentioned defendants. No error.

The plaintiff is administrator d. b. n. of the estate of Richard Hubbell, and administrator d. b. n. c. t. a. of the estate of Amos Hubbell, both late of Stratford, deceased. The defendants the First Congregational Society of Bridgeport and the United Congregational Society of Bridgeport are incorporated ecclesiastical societies. For some time prior to July 2, 1805, Richard and Amos Hubbell were the owners in common of a certain piece of land, 78 by 128 feet, more or less, situated in Bridgeport. On that date Richard and the executors of the will of Amos conveyed this land by a deed, a copy of which is set forth in a footnote hereto.^[1]

Grantees under deed, resting their title on validity of grant, cannot attack reversionary interest created by same grant.

The complaint alleged that the deed was accepted and the land used for the purposes set forth therein until on or about April, 1916, when the defendant societies ceased to use the land for church purposes; that about January, 1923, the defendant United Congregational Society determined to construct a church in some other part of Bridgeport; that the land has stood vacant and unoccupied since April, 1916, there being no inhabitants of the towns of Stratford and Fairfield who have associated themselves for the purpose of maintaining religious worship and to use and occupy the land according to the terms of the deed; and that by the provisions of the deed the property reverted back to the use and behoof of the original grantors their heirs and assigns. The plaintiff therefore prayed that the court order, determine, and settle the title to the property.

The trial court found that the term " Presbyterian," employed in the deed, was, at the time, interchangeably used with " Congregational" to denominate ecclasiastical societies or churches then and now customarily known as Congregational, and that the defendant the First Congregational Society of Bridgeport was the local Presbyterian Congregational Society mentioned in the deed. A church edifice upon the land described in the deed was completed, in 1808, by this society, and from that time until 1916 religious activities were conducted therein, and in a rebuilt church subsequently erected on this land and an adjoining tract, which was acquired by the society to meet the requirements of its increased number of members. In 1916 a consolidation was effected between the First Congregational Society, the Second Congregational Society, and a new organization, the United Congregational Society of Bridgeport, and these three ecclesiastical societies have since jointly supported public worship and the exercises of religion.

The original plan of consolidation contemplated the demolition of the church edifice on the land in question and the adjoining tract, and the erection of a new church thereon, adequate in size for the accommodation of the persons so worshipping together. The church was demolished accordingly, but the carrying out of the building plans was delayed until 1920, when, owing to a large increase in the number of church members, the restricted size of the lot, and other reasons, the land was and had become unsuitable and inadequate for use as the location for such proper church, parish house, and other buildings and equipment as were required for carrying on the work of the consolidated church and societies, and of the various charitable and philanthropic activities connected therewith.

On or about January 1, 1924, the societies by proper action determined not to erect a church upon that site, but to build upon land at the corner of State street and Park avenue, which was acquired for the purpose. A church edifice was thereupon erected, and the same has been used continuously by the defendant societies for the maintenance and conduct of their religious services and activities. The tract of land described in the deed has stood vacant and unoccupied since 1916. At no time since have any inhabitants of Bridgeport, Fairfield, or Stratford, which together comprise the territory included in the towns of Stratford and Fairfield as of July 2, 1805, associated themselves for the purpose of maintaining religious worship on the premises according to the provisions of the deed, nor has any such association in fact occupied or attempted to occupy the premises for such purposes or otherwise. The administrator of the estates of Richard Hubbell and Amos Hubbell, on December 15, 1925, entered upon and took possession of the land, although the defendant societies have not recognized its rights to such occupancy. Other facts disclosed by the record are mentioned in the course of the opinion.

The trial court reached the conclusions that the defendant societies (the appellants) have ceased to use the premises for the purposes provided in the deed and now have no beneficial use therein; that the defendants representing the inhabitants of the towns of Stratford and Fairfield as of July 2, 1805, are precluded from in any way hereafter using the premises; and that the title thereto has reverted back to the use and behoof of the original grantors, their heirs and assigns, and rendered judgment accordingly.

David S. Day, Vincent L. Keating, and Samuel F. Beardsley, all of Bridgeport, for appellants.

James C. Shannon, Frank L. Wilder, and Irving Elson, all of Bridgeport, for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

HINMAN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

A former action relating to the same property as is here involved (First Congregational Society v. City of Bridgeport et al., 99 Conn. 22, 121 A. 77), brought in 1920, included a prayer that the court determine and settle the title thereto, and two of the heirs of Amos Hubbell, as defendants therein, alleged that the plaintiff had violated the provisions of the deed and abandoned the property, and that the land, by the terms of the deed, reverted to them as such heirs, and prayed a decree investing the title in them. As to this issue the trial court concluded, upon the facts found as of that time, that neither the plaintiff, nor its predecessors, nor the United Congregational Society had abandoned the property or failed to carry out the provisions of the deed, but had conformed thereto, and adjudged, under this prayer for relief, that the title to the land was " in the United Congregational Society as trustee for the use and benefit of its members and of all those members of the First Congregational Society associated with it for the maintenance and support of the exercises of religion in the city of Bridgeport." This portion of the judgment was not appealed from; the appeal to this court relating only to the denial of the further relief sought by way of a sale of the real estate and substitution of the proceeds as trust property for the benefit of the plaintiff. First Congregational Society v. Bridgeport, supra.

In the present action the court, upon the facts found as to present conditions, accruing since the trial of the former case, as summarized in the foregoing statement, concluded that the defendants United Congregational Society and First Congregational Society have now ceased to use the premises for the purposes provided in the deed, and held that, in consequence, the title to the premises reverts to the heirs and assigns of Richard and Amos Hubbell. In view of the finding in the former action that there had been no abandonment, at that time, of the use of the land for church purposes, it is clear that there was no occasion for determining therein the effect upon the title to the property of such abandonment as is now found to have occurred (being a new fact intervening), and adjudication thereof in the present action is not precluded or prejudiced. Lord v. Litchfield, 36 Conn. 116, 130, 4 Am.Rep. 41; Vincent v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 77 Conn. 281, 285, 58 A. 963.

The assignments of error relating to the ruling on demurrer and those concerning the claims of law made on the trial raise identical questions; the general claims of the appellants being (1) that the reverter provision in the deed is void as to the entire freehold estate, because of contravention of the Statute of Perpetuities in effect at the date of the deed; or (2) is void as to the moiety of Amos Hubbell which was conveyed by his executors, not only for the above reason, but also because the creation of such reverter was beyond the power and authority of the executors; also (3) that the relief prayed for and granted amounts to the enforcement of a forfeiture. No question is made as to the right of the present plaintiffs to bring this action as representatives and on behalf of the heirs.

The validity of the provision...