Town of Montevallo v. Village School District of Montevallo
| Decision Date | 02 June 1916 |
| Parties | TOWN OF MONTEVALLO, Plaintiff in Error, v. VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MONTEVALLO |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Error to Vernon Circuit Court. -- Hon. B. G. Thurman, Judge.
Affirmed.
J. B Journey for plaintiff in error.
(1) A city or town may control and regulate the use of ground dedicated to the public, but it cannot sell the land or devote it to private use, and thereby destroy the trust created for the benefit of the public. Cummings v. St Louis, 90 Mo. 259; Board of Regents v. Painter, 102 Mo. 464; G. S. 1865, chap. 44, sec. 8; R. S. 1909, sec 10294. Nor is the establishment of a public school therein a compliance with the purpose of the dedicator. Board of Regents v. Painter, 102 Mo. 464. (2) The act of the town board of the plaintiff on July 19, 1886, in ceding the public square or block of ground in question to the Montevallo Village School District, for school purposes, did not pass any title to said land to the defendant in error. It merely gave them a very doubtful right. In fact it did not give them any right at all. The act was ultra vires, because it was a diversion of the land from the purpose for which it was dedicated. The town board had no right to make such an order. Board of Regents v. Painter, 102 Mo. 464; Thomas v. Hunt, 134 Mo. 402; Refining Co. v. Grain Co., 82 Mo. 121; Ferrenbach v. Turner, 86 Mo. 419. (3) The court in rendering his decision found that the plaintiff in error, the town of Montevallo, had abandoned the land in question. The facts in testimony will not sustain any such finding. But if true, there could be no such thing as abandonment -- the public cannot be held responsible for the neglect of duty of its officers and agents. St. Louis v. Railway, 114 Mo. 13.
Scott & Bowker for defendant in error.
(1) No unincorporated town or village can take and hold the legal title to land conveyed by deed, for the reason that there is no grantee in being in whom the title can vest. Miller v. Rosenberger, 144 Mo. 292; Kansas City v. Scarritt, 169 Mo. 471. (2) Where there is no party grantee in being at the time of the grant made for a public use, as in the case here, the legal title remains in the grantor, and where the public use is abandoned the whole title reverts to the original grantor. Kansas City v. Scarritt, 169 Mo. 471. (3) In all cases of a grant of land for a public use, in case of an abandonment thereof, the title reverts to the original grantor. Kansas City v. Scarritt, 169 Mo. 471; Campbell v. Kansas City, 102 Mo. 326; Gaskins v. Williams, 235 Mo. 563.
OPINION
In Banc.
-- This is an action brought in the circuit court of Vernon County upon section 2535, Revised Statutes 1909, to determine the title and interest of the respective parties to and in a tract of land in the town of Montevallo in said county. The respective claims are as follows: On December 1, 1866, one Samuel Manatt laid off a town in Vernon County which was named in the plat the Town of Montevallo, which seems to be in all respects in conformity with the provisions of the statutes on that subject. [G. S. 1865, pp. 247-248.] A block three hundred feet square near the middle of the plat is undivided into lots and marked "public square." The statutory dedication written upon this plat is as follows: "We do hereby endorse and confirm the survey as made and described in the within plat, and in consideration thereof we have and do dedicate, give, and grant the public square, streets, alleys, and other grounds therein described for public use forever, hereby granting unto the public the full use and enjoyment of said square, streets, alleys, and squares in said town of Montevallo." This plat was filed in the office of the recorder on November 25, 1881.
On April 17, 1871, by an order of the county court, a town including the Manatt plat was incorporated by the name of the Inhabitants of the Town of Montevallo, which is the plaintiff in this case.
On July 19, 1886, the board of trustees of the town of Montevallo made upon its record an order, the effective portion of which is as follows: "It is ordered by the board of trustees of the town of Montevallo, that the block or square of ground near the center of said town of Montevallo, and dedicated in the recorded plat of said town by Samuel Manatt and wife, in the year 1868, to the citizens of the town of Montevallo, for public purposes, be and is hereby ceded to C. W. Bullock, John T. Campbell, Robison Pierce, James L. Dickson, and W. T. Taylor, directors of the Montevallo Village School District, and to their successors in office, for school purposes."
Before that time the square had been fenced with an oak board fence and used by one Pierce as a feed yard for hogs and cattle and was sometimes cultivated in crops. Along in the seventies it was abandoned, and grew up in brush and briars. Upon the making of the foregoing order in 1886 the school board procured a deed from Manatt, took possession of the square, and built thereon a stone school house costing about $ 3000 which has been maintained ever since, and used for the purpose of maintaining and holding the public school of the district, without protest from anybody so far as the record shows, until this suit was instituted.
The finding and judgment in this case, so far as it relates to the question involved in this appeal, are as follows:
The terms of the judgment, as well as the pleadings, present two questions: (1) whether or not the village of Montevallo was authorized under the terms of the dedication in the Manatt plat to appropriate the property to the exclusive use of the school district; and, if not, (2) whether the doctrine of estoppel upon the facts stated can be invoked as against the village.
The grant to the village in this case was of a "public square," and "for the full use and enjoyment" of the entire public forever. Respondent contends that a public school use is of such a general public nature that it is "a full use and enjoyment" by the public so as to meet the requirement that it be enjoyed for all public purposes, and in this is supported by the decision of this court in Reid v. Board of Education of Edina, 73 Mo. 295, in which case the facts were substantially the same as those disclosed by this record. It is our opinion that the doctrine announced in that case is not sound, and that the same should be overruled. The grant for a public school use is decidedly more limited and restricted than the original dedication warranted, and the village was without authority to change the purposes of the original grant. It is going too far to say that in dedicating this property to a single public use, and particularly the use of another separate and distinct public corporation, as is a school district, the requirements of this original grant are complied with.
I agree that in appropriating this property to a public school use the village was appropriating it to, at least, one public use, and, to this extent, was acting within the scope of its authority and the original dedication. Can then the doctrine of estoppel or laches be applied as against this municipal corporation? We think so; and, upon this theory, the judgment should be affirmed, this being the defense pleaded.
While I recognize the general rule that estoppel cannot ordinarily be invoked against a municipal corporation, yet I think there is authority abundant to the effect that there may grow up in consequence of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial