Lakatong Lodge No. 114 of Quakertown v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Tp.

• Decision Date: 12 January 1915
• Docket Number: No. 36/299.,36/299.
• Citation: 84 N.J.Eq. 112,92 A. 870
• Parties: LAKATONG LODGE NO. 114 OF QUAKERTOWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FRANKLIN TP., HUNTERDON COUNTY.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

92 A. 870

84 N.J.Eq. 112

LAKATONG LODGE NO. 114 OF QUAKERTOWN

v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF FRANKLIN TP., HUNTERDON COUNTY.

No. 36/299.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Jan. 12, 1915.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Suit by Lakatong Lodge No. 114 of Quakertown, etc., against the Board of Education of Franklin Township, Hunterdon County. Decree advised in opinion.

Paul A. Queen and H. B. Herr, both of Flemington, and C. A. Woodruff, of Newark, for complainant .

Willard C. Parker and George H. Large, both of Flemington, for defendant.

BACKES, V. C. For the purpose of securing to the children of the vicinity facilities for a higher grade of education than the district school afforded, citizens of Franklin township, in Hunterdon county, contributed a fund which was used in the purchase of a lot of land, and the erection thereon of a two-story schoolhouse. Title to the lot was taken in 1850 from one Clifton, in the name of five men, as "trustees of the Franklin Education Association," with grant and habendum to them and "to their successors in office." The deed contains all of the covenants of a general warranty, which run to the trustees "and their successors in office." It is on a printed form, and the words "heirs and assigns," wherever they relate to the trustees, are stricken out. The trustees conducted an academy in the first floor of the building until 1866, when, because of financial failure, the undertaking was abandoned, and the property was turned over to the public school authorities of the district, who have ever since carried on the system of public education in the first floor of the building. Recently the building was condemned as unfit for school purposes, and, in order to erect a new one on the site, the defendant was about to tear it down, when it was stopped by a temporary restraining order. The complainant has occupied the second story of the building as a lodgeroom since 1856, under a lease made to it by the trustees, for a term of five years, at an annual rental of $25, paid the rent until the year 1872, when, the bill alleges, it purchased from the trustees the title to the schoolhouse lot.

After the defendant answered, denying complainant's title by purchase from the trustees, and in which it set up that the Franklin Education Association was a charitable trust, and that, upon becoming defunct, the further performance of the trust was turned over to the public school authorities by the trustees, with the intent and effect of vesting in them the full title to, and control over, the school property, by way of dedication, the complainant procured from the heirs at law of Clifton, the grantor of the trustees, a deed for the schoolhouse lot, and laid claim thereto thereunder, in a supplemental bill. This obviously was obtained upon the notion that, because the deed to the trustees contained no words of inheritance, a life estate only passed to them, and was at an end by reason of their death. This evidently was also the idea of the defendant, because it filed a cross-bill, praying that the deed be reformed by restoring the words of limitation, so as to carry the fee.

On the coming in of the defendant's answer, the temporary restraining order was continued, upon condition that the complainant try the issue of its alleged legal title, set up in the original bill, at the then next term of the Hunterdon circuit. Thereafter (the complainant having then procured the deed from the heirs at law) the defendant, fearing that title under the deed could be maintained, applied for a stay of the action, which was then pending in the circuit, and for leave to file a cross-bill. Both sides have signified their willingness that the questions in dispute be decided in this court. Freichnecht v. Meyer, 39 N. J. Eq. 551.

If it were deemed necessary to reform the deed to the trustees, on the ground of mistake, ample proof of an intention to convey a fee may be discovered in the record. Before the deed to the trustees was made, their grantor agreed in writing to sell to them the land for $100, to be paid on the 1st day of May then following, and also agreed to pay one-half of the expense of surveying the land, and in the meantime to "give sufficient possession of the same, to give the said trustees room to deliver stone and materials on the ground, to commence or build an academy, for which purpose they purchased said land." A penalty for nonperformance in the sum of $500 was stipulated. The price agreed upon was evidently the full value of the land, and from this it is a fair assumption that the entire estate was to be sold. Also, the structure to be built, and the purpose of its building, evince a futurity far beyond the lifetime of the trustees. The covenants in the deed that the grantor has good right to sell the said lands to the party of the second part and their successors in office "forever," that they shall at all times...