Howland v. School-Dist. No. 3

• Decision Date: 10 December 1885
• Citation: 15 R.I. 184,2 A. 549
• Parties: HOWLAND v. SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 3.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

2 A. 549

15 R.I. 184

HOWLAND

v. SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 3.

SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.

Filed December 10, 1885.

Trespass and ejectment, heard by court, jury trial being waived.

E. L. Barney and Charles Acton Ives, for plaintiff.

Ziba O. Slocum, for defendant.

DURFEE, C. J. This is trespass and ejectment for a lot of land in Little Crompton, which it is admitted belongs to the plaintiffs unless the defendant has acquired title by taking it for a school-house lot under Gen. St. R. I. c. 53, § 5, which is as follows: "In case the school committee shall fix upon a location for a school-house in any district, or shall determine that the school-house lot ought to be enlarged, and the district shall have passed a vote to erect a school-house, or to enlarge the school-house lot, or in case there is no district organization, and the committee shall fix upon a location for a school-house, and the proprietor of the land shall refuse to convey the same, or cannot agree with the district for the price thereof, the school committee, of their own motion, or on application of the district, shall be authorized to appoint three disinterested persons, who shall notify the parties, and decide upon the valuation of the land; and, upon tender or payment of the sum fixed upon to the proprietor, the title to the land so fixed on by the school committee, not exceeding one acre, shall vest in the district for the purpose of maintaining thereon a school-house and the necessary appendages thereof;"—being the same as Pub. St. R. I. c. 56, § 5.

We think that section 5, though not quite clear in all respects, is clear in this respect, namely, that where a town has a district organization, the school committee is authorized to appoint appraisers to decide upon the value of land fixed upon by the committee as the site of a school-house in any district after the district has voted to erect a school-house, no authority to make the appointment being given until after such vote. It follows that in such a case an appointment, before the vote, is unauthorized and void, and consequently that any valuation of the land by the appraisers so appointed, and any tender to the owner in pursuance thereof, are ineffectual to divest the title of such owner and vest it in the district.

We think the proceeding under which the defendant claims is defective in this particular. The records of the defendant district and of the school committee, copies of which were put in evidence at the trial, show...