Coffin v. City of Portland

• Decision Date: 15 February 1888
• Citation: 16 Or. 77,17 P. 580
• Parties: COFFIN et al. v. CITY OF PORTLAND et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

17 P. 580

16 Or. 77

COFFIN et al. v. CITY OF PORTLAND et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

February 15, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county.

Action in equity, brought by George A. Coffin and others, as heirs of Stephen Coffin, against the city of Portland and the Portland & Willamette Valley Railway Company, to declare a resulting trust in favor of the complainants in certain lands conveyed to the city of Portland by Stephen Coffin. From the judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer to the complaint the complainants appeal.

J.G Chapman and W.R. Bilyen, for appellants.

W.H Adams, for City of Portland. McDougall & Bower, for Portland & Willamette Valley Railway Company.

THAYER J.

This appeal comes here from the circuit court for the county of Multnomah. It is from a decree of that court sustaining a demurrer to the appellants' complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that appellants are the heirs at law of Stephen Coffin, deceased; that said Coffin, David H. Lownsdale, and W.W. Chapman were the town proprietors of the town of Portland, and that in 1850, in laying off said town, they attempted to dedicate certain premises as a public "levee;" that they made and published a map of the town, on which they designated them as a "public levee;" that, in a subsequent division of the town-site among the said proprietors, the part thereof allotted to Coffin included the said "levee;" that, in 1865 Coffin executed a deed of the levee to the city of Portland but without consideration, and in trust for a public levee or landing; that, in 1871, said Coffin executed a second deed of the levee to the city of Portland in consideration of $2,500; that the latter deed recited the former one; also that Coffin owned the right of a public ferry on the premises, and that it was desirable that the city should hold the levee free from such claim; that the premises constituting the levee, at the time said last deed was executed, were worth $50,000, and at the time the complaint was filed were worth $70,000; that neither the city of Portland, the state of Oregon, nor the public had ever made any use of the premises, and each had abandoned them; that the use for which the dedication and donation were attempted to be made had failed, and that no public levee or landing could be maintained of any utility; that the attempted dedication and donation were upon condition that the premises should be used as a public landing or levee, and that they had not been so used, and that it was not intended to so use them; that, in 1885, the legislature of Oregon passed an act attempting to grant the premises to the Portland & Willamette Valley Railway Company, a private corporation, for its depot, wharf, and warehouse, and that said company claims the premises under such act. Wherefore the appellants claimed that a reversion and resulting trust of the premises should be declared in their favor. It is shown in the complaint that the city of Portland has exercised acts of ownership over the levee, that in 1884 it caused piling to be driven along the front thereof, upon the margin of the Willamette river, at a cost of $4,000; and it is not pretended that the city has ever indicated any formal intention of abandoning it, or done any act from which such intention could be implied.

The inference to be drawn from the complaint in reference thereto seems to be that it cannot practically carry out the purposes of the dedication, as the appellants term it, nor employ it for the purposes designed, nor needs it. Under one aspect of the complaint, the property was given for a particular use; and, it having failed, a resulting use or trust arises in favor of the donor's heirs, which entitles them to reclaim it. Under another aspect of it, the property was given upon condition that it should be used for a particular purpose; and it not having been so used, was a violation of the condition, and operated as a forfeiture of the estate given, and entitled the heirs to a return of it to them.

The title of the city of Portland to the premises in question is derived by the purchase of them from Stephen Coffin, and, if the heirs of the latter have the right to reclaim the title granted, it arises out of the terms upon which the purchase was made. The premises were conveyed by Coffin to the city by the deeds of 1865 and 1871; and if it can be ascertained therefrom that Coffin only intended to convey to the city a partial use of the premises, reserving the residue to himself, and the complaint shows that the use so conveyed is terminated, the estate reverts to his heirs. If, on the contrary, the deeds show that Coffin intended to convey to the city his entire interest in the premises, although he limited their use to some particular purpose, and the city has diverted the use to an entirely different purpose, still neither he nor his heirs would have any right to claim a reversion of them. They would doubtless have the right to go into a court of equity, and ask that the city be compelled to devote the premises to the use intended. They would not be entitled to a return of them, for the reason that the grantor had disposed of his entire interest in them; and the property would no more revert to him or his heirs, in any event, than to a stranger. A grantor virtually becomes a stranger to the property when he alienates it absolutely. The effect of a...