Kittaning Academy v. Brown

• Decision Date: 06 January 1862
• Citation: 41 Pa. 269
• Parties: Kittaning Academy <I>versus</I> Brown.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

41 Pa. 269

Kittaning Academy versus Brown.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 6, 1862.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Armstrong county.

The case was argued by Golden & Fultton, for plaintiff, and by Boggs and Calhoun, for defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 6th 1862, by WOODWARD, J.

The county of Armstrong was organized by Act of Assembly of 12th March 1800, in accordance with the usage which has prevailed in Pennsylvania. The limits and boundaries of the county were prescribed — it was christened — the seat of justice was directed to be fixed within five miles of "Old Kittaning Town," and trustees were appointed to receive and hold the title of the necessary ground for the public buildings. By a subsequent Act of 1803, the trustees were empowered to accept the offer of James Armstrong of one hundred and fifty acres, to be divided into town lots, and sold for the benefit of the county and of the donor, in equal parts, and they were authorized also to lay out a convenient lot or lots, not exceeding two acres, whereon the public buildings were to be erected. All this was done. Armstrong held title from the Commonwealth, and he conveyed the two acres to the trustees, in pursuance of the legislation above referred to, and the court-house and jail were built upon them.

In 1821, the legislature incorporated the Kittaning Academy, and enacted that the trustees of the academy "have leave given them to cause the said building or buildings to be erected on any of the lots reserved for the use of the public buildings in said town, if they shall approve of the situation, and judge the same expedient." The charter of the academy was accepted, and a building was erected at a cost of $1130, on the two acres reserved for the public buildings of the county.

By Act of Assembly of 8th April 1850, the commissioners of Armstrong county were authorized to divide up said two acres into town lots, and to sell them, and apply the proceeds to the erection of new county buildings in another part of the town. The defendant is in possession, under a sale made by the county commissioners, in pursuance of that Act of Assembly. The academy brought this action of ejectment to recover half an acre of the ground which it considers necessary for its purposes, and which it claims, first, by virtue of the legislative grant of 1821, and, secondly, under the Statute of Limitations.

As to the first ground of the plaintiff's claim. Had the Act of 1821 been what it was not, a formal grant of title to the academy, it is difficult to see upon what principle it could be supported. The title was not in the state. The proprietary patent of March 22d 1775 to John Armstrong had long ago divested it, and vested it in those under whom the defendant claims. John Armstrong devised it to his two sons, John and James, and they conveyed it to the trustees of the county for the use of the county. The Statute of Uses would have executed this trust in favour of the county, and vested the legal title in them, if the trustees had not done it by their deed of November 3d 1807. But from that date the county was clothed with a full and absolute title to the premises. If it be admitted that the Act of 1803 had impressed the condition upon the title that it should be held for the use of the "public buildings" of the county, these must be construed to be a court-house, the necessary public offices for the conduct of the business of county officers, and a jail. An academy is not a public building within the meaning of the Act of Assembly. The legislature had in mind those buildings which are ordinarily used in conducting county affairs. Nothing more. Churches, academies, school-houses, poor-houses, and the like, are in some sense public buildings, but they are not what is meant by legislative language, when, in the erection of new counties, "public...