Stanley v. Colt
Decision Date | 01 December 1866 |
Parties | STANLEY v. COLT |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, the case being this:
From the year 1702 or earlier, and down to the year 1818 and afterwards, with some unimportant alterations, there existed and was in force in Connecticut a statute thus:
'That all such lands, tenements, hereditaments, and other estates, that either formerly have been, or hereafter shall be, given and granted, either by the General Assembly of this Colony or by any town, village, or particular person or persons, for the maintenance of the ministry of the Gospel in any part of this Colony, or schools of learning, or for the relief of poor people, or for any other public and charitable use, shall forever remain and be continued to the use or uses to which such lands, tenements, hereditaments, or other estates, have been, or shall be, given and granted, according to the true intent and meaning of the grantors, and to no other use whatsoever; and also be exempted out of the general lists of estates, and free from the payment of rates.'
This act being thus in force, William Stanley, of Hartford, Connecticut, in October, 1786, made his will in the material parts as follows:
The ecclesiastical society named in the devise above quoted was established by authority of the State of Connecticut for the support of the Gospel ministry and the maintenance of public worship, and with power, for that purpose, to hold real estate.
After the death of Stanley and his sister Abigail, who had the life-estate, and whose death occurred prior to the year 1800, it took possession of the premises, and down to 1852 the society and trustees managed them in the manner directed in the will, appropriating the income from time to time to the purposes of the society. During the whole time the premises were untaxed, the only ground for the exemption being the provision in the act of 1702, quoted on p. 120. In the year 1852 the legislature of Connecticut, upon the application of the society and of the trustees, passed a resolution reciting a memorial by the church and trustees, showing the will, possession of the land, &c.
'Also showing that the said land has on it a great number of buildings, owned by the tenants, built of wood, and in a decayed state; that the land on which they stand has, by the lapse of about three-fourths of a century, become valuable, some of which is in the central part of the city of Hartford, and too valuable to be improved profitably in any other way than by the erection on them of permanent brick or stone blocks of buildings; that the lessees cannot safely erect such buildings, because of the uncertainty of their tenure, and because they would thereby place themselves in the power of the owners, and that the owners have not the means, and could not lawfully contract debts for the purpose of building; that other parts of the estate are subject to other embarrassments arising from the restrictions of the will, so that said property has become unproductive, and the income greatly reduced, and the object of the testator in devising the property to the society frustrated; that those embarrassments, both to the owners and occupants, consequent on the restrictions in the will, are not likely to be removed, but will be increased by time, unless said land can be sold and conveyed in fee simple, and the proceeds suitably invested.
'And praying the Assembly to authorize a sale and conveyance of said land, under such guards and provisions as will secure the application of the proceeds according to the true intent and meaning of said will, as per petition on file.'
This legislative record thus proceeded:
'This Assembly having inquired into the facts stated in said memorial, find the same to be true; and do further find that the most valuable portion of said estate is situated in a central part of said city of Hartford, is covered with unsuitable wooden buildings, and it is for the interest of the people of said city that more useful and valuable buildings should be built thereon, and do grant the prayer thereof; and it is therefore
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Delaware Land & Development Company, a Corporation of State v. First And Central Presbyterian Church of Wilmington, Delaware, Inc., a Corporation of State
... ... conversion is essential to properly carry out the purposes of ... the trust. Stanley v. Colt , 72 U.S. 119, 5 Wall ... 119, 18 L.Ed. 502; Atty. Gen. v. South Sea Co. , 4 ... Beav. 453 ; Weeks v. Hobson , 150 ... Mass. 377, 23 ... ...
-
United States v. Oregon & C.R. Co.
...technical language. ' The deed in that case, however, was ultimately held not to have been executed upon condition. In Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119, 166, 18 L.Ed. 502, court says: 'It is true that the word 'proviso' is an appropriate one to constitute a common-law condition in a deed or wil......
-
Southern Surety Co. v. MacMillan Co.
...and has frequently been thus explained and applied as expressing simply a covenant or limitation in trust." Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. (72 U. S.) 119, 166, 18 L. Ed. 502. "Where the undertaking on one side is in terms a condition to the stipulation on the other, — that is, where the contract ......
-
Lackland v. Walker
...law governing the administration of charitable trusts. Academy of Visitation v. Clemens, 50 Mo. 167, citing and following Stanley v. Colt, 5 Wall. 119. See, also, v. McPherson, 51 Mo. 126; Schmidt v. Hess, 60 Mo. 591; First Baptist Church v. Robberson, 71 Mo. 326; Howe v. Wilson, 91 Mo. 47;......
-
ALABAMA OBSCURA: BARNETT V. JONES, GLASS V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, AND CORPUS LINGUISTICS: A POTENTIAL PATH TO UNCLOUDING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF SECTION 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ALABAMA OF 1901.
...662, 669-673 (Ala. 2020) (Parker, C.J., concurring specially). (54 )Peddycoart, 354 So. 2d at 811. (55) See id; see also Stanley v. Colt, 72 U.S. 119 (1866). A proviso is a legislative drafting convention, in which the word "provided" or the phrase "provided, that..." or "provided, however,......