Hopkins v. Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 29908.,29908. |
| Citation | 151 N.W. 443,173 Iowa 43 |
| Parties | HOPKINS v. SCHOOL DIST., SHERMAN TP. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Story County; C. G. Lee, Judge.
Suit in equity to declare a forfeiture and to recover an acre of ground and to quiet the title. There was a decree for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. Affirmed.Edward McCall and Harry Langland, both of Nevada, Iowa, for appellant.
B. B. Welty, of Nevada, Iowa, for appellee.
The land in question comprises the schoolhouse lot of the defendant school district. It was acquired by the defendant in 1877 by deed from one Flickinger. The deed contained a proviso that the land should revert to the grantor whenever it should cease to be used for school purposes. Subsequently Flickinger sold to plaintiff the quarter-section farm out of which the acre was carved and later conveyed to him his reversionary interest in the schoolhouse lot. A schoolhouse was built upon the property and a school maintained for many years. From March, 1909, to March, 1912, no school was held upon said property or in said school district. The reason for this was that there were hardly any children in the district, and such as were in the district attended school in other localities. During the period of three years no director was elected. The building was greatly dilapidated and had so been for several years. The plaintiff claimed the reversion. Thereupon a school was again opened with four or five scholars, only one or two of which actually lived in the district. The plaintiff bases his claim to reversion both upon the deed and upon the statute, Code, § 2816, which is as follows:
“In the case of nonuser for school purposes for two years continuously of any real estate acquired for a schoolhouse site it shall revert, with improvements thereon, to the owner of the tract from which it was taken, upon repayment of the purchase price without interest, together with the value of the improvements, to be determined by arbitration, but during its use the owner of the right of reversion shall have no interest in or control over the premises.”
In view of this statute we shall have no need to consider the effect of the proviso in the original deed.
The defense rests upon two general propositions:
[1] 1. It is urged that the closing of the school was with the consent and by the order of the county superintendent, and that this was equivalent to using the property for school purposes. There is a statutory provision which authorizes the county superintendent to permit a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxwell v. Custer
... ... vacant buildings, which rapidly deteriorate even when cared ... for. As said in Hopkins v. School District, 173 Iowa 43, 45, ... 46, 151 N.W. 443, such vacant schoolhouses, situated as ... Board of ... Directors of Aurelia Consol. Independent School Dist., 190 ... Iowa 400, 410, 175 N.W. 65, 69, Evans, J., said: [238 Iowa ... 1315] 'We think ... ...
-
Waddell v. Board of Directors of Aurelia Consolidated Independent School Dist.
...in that it impairs the property rights of defendant. It is further urged that such holding was not necessary to the result in the Hopkins case, and that, therefore, the holding was dictum. It is true that the result in the Hopkins case was based upon two grounds, either one of which would h......
-
Waddell v. Bd. of Dirs. of Aurelia Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist.
...school district held the absolute fee-simple title of the school site. [1] The trial court followed our holding in Hopkins v. School District, 173 Iowa, 43, 151 N. W. 443, 155 N. W. 168. In that case we held that the provisions of section 2816 were applicable to “any real estate” held by a ......
- Hopkins v. Sch. Dist. of Sherman Tp., Story Cnty.