Fall Creek School Township of Madison County v. Shuman
| Decision Date | 18 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | 8,106 |
| Parties | FALL CREEK SCHOOL TOWNSHIP OF MADISON COUNTY v. SHUMAN |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Madison Circuit Court; H. Clarence Austill, Special Judge.
Action by Fall Creek Township of Madison County against Henry H Shuman. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Lawrence V. Mays and Henry C. Ryan, for appellant.
Jesse C. Shuman and Kittinger & Diven, for appellee.
This was a suit by appellant to quiet title to, and for possession of certain real estate in Madison County, Indiana. No question is raised on the pleadings, therefore they need not be set out.
Special findings of fact were made and conclusions of law stated thereon by the court, the substance of which is as follows On March 23, 1832, Henry Snell entered from the United States government, certain described real estate in Madison County Indiana. By said entry and continuing in possession from that date to August 4, 1854, he became the owner in fee simple thereof. On August 4, 1854, he executed to appellant a deed of conveyance of a portion of said real estate as follows:
"Henry Snell, of Madison County, in the State of Indiana, quitclaim to the trustees of Fall Creek Township, and their successors in office forever, of Madison County, in the State of Indiana, in consideration of the benefit of common school, the following real estate in Madison County, in the State of Indiana, to wit: A part of the west half of the northwest quarter, of Section eight (8), Township Eighteen (18) North, of Range Seven (7) East, * * * containing about one-fourth (1/4) of an acre, so long as the same is used for school purposes. * * *"
The deed was duly acknowledged and recorded. Prior to the year 1848, the officials of Fall Creek Township took possession of the real estate, erected a log cabin on it, and in the same year began holding school therein. Some years later, this building was replaced with a frame school building, which was afterwards removed, and another schoolhouse erected. In 1894, this was removed and a brick schoolhouse which is now standing, was erected on the land and is worth about $ 1,000. The real estate with the several buildings thereon was used for school purposes continually from 1848 to the end of the school year in March, 1908. In the spring of 1908, it was found that the daily attendance during the last preceding school year fell below twelve, and the scholars were transferred to another district where they have since attended school. In August, 1908, the school trustee removed all the school furniture, including seats, blackboard and maps from the building to another district, leaving the stoves and school bell. The trustee at that time notified appellee Shuman that the township was not intending to abandon the schoolhouse and premises. At the time of removal of the furniture from the building in August, 1908, it was the intention of the trustee to discontinue and abandon the school at that place, and from that time there has been no school on the premises, nor effort made to reinstall the same. The enumeration of 1910 showed the number of children between the ages of six and sixteen years, residing in the district to be twenty-five. Soon after the acts of the trustee, appellee Shuman took possession of the school building, locked the same, and has ever since continued in possession thereof, and is claiming an interest in and title to the real estate. Appellant was in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the real estate from August 4, 1854, until August, 1908, and the only claim of ownership or title made by it was that conveyed and granted by the deed of conveyance to it. Henry Snell continued to own the real state and all interest therein except that conveyed to appellant until January 11, 1861, when he conveyed to William Snell by deed with covenants of general warranty the entire tract, without exception or reservation on account of the conveyance made to appellant. Afterwards, and prior to March, 1908, the real estate was conveyed to appellee Shuman, his respective grantors conveying the entire tract without reservation on account of the deed to appellant, and since that time, Shuman has been the owner of all the interest in the real estate which was owned by Henry Snell after the execution of the deed to appellant. Shuman, at the time the conveyance was made, and each of his grantors, at the time they acquired the real estate, respectively, had full notice and knowledge of the deed executed by Henry Snell to appellant, and that appellant was in possession of the real estate and occupying it for school purposes.
Upon these facts the court stated its conclusions of law to be: (1) The deed of conveyance from Henry Snell to appellant, executed on March 4, 1854, did not convey to appellant a fee simple title to the real estate; (2) said deed did not convey the title to the real estate described therein with a condition subsequent; (3) said deed conveyed to appellant the right to the possession and to use said real estate for such time as appellant should continue to use and occupy it for school purposes; (4) appellee Shuman is the owner of said real estate; (5) appellant is not entitled to have its title thereto quieted as against appellee; (6) appellant is not entitled to possession of the real estate as against appellee Shuman. Judgment was rendered accordingly.
The evidence is not set out in appellant's brief, therefore no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the special findings of fact. For the purpose of considering the exceptions to conclusions of law, the exceptions thereto admit that the facts have been fully and correctly found. National State Bank v. Sandford Fork, etc., Co. (1901), 157 Ind. 10, 15, 60 N.E. 699; City of Indianapolis v Board, etc. (1902), 28 Ind.App. 319, 323, 62 N.E. 715; Ladd v. Kuhn (1901), 27 Ind.App. 535, 540, 61 N.E. 747. Many points are discussed by the learned counsel in their briefs, but it is the judgment of the court that the whole question here depends upon the construction to be given to the deed of Henry Snell to appellant. If it be a deed conveying a title with a condition subsequent, appellee is not entitled to recover in this case, because the title would not vest in the grantees of Snell, upon the abandonment of the property, but in him or his heirs, upon proper reentry. Higbee v. Rodeman (1891), 129 Ind. 244, 28 N.E. 442; Tiedeman, Real Property § 281. If it be construed to be a deed with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial