Town of S. Kingstown v. Wakefield Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1926
• Docket Number: No. 731.,731.
• Citation: 134 A. 815
• Parties: TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN v. WAKEFIELD TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

134 A. 815

TOWN OF SOUTH KINGSTOWN

v. WAKEFIELD TRUST CO. et al.

No. 731.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Oct. 27, 1926.

Certified questions from Superior Court, Washington County.

Bill for specific performance by the Town of South Kingstown against the Wakefield Trust Company and another. On certified questions under Gen. Laws 1923, § 4968. Questions answered.

Benjamin W. Case, of Wakefield, for complainant.

Percy W. Gardner, of Providence, for respondents.

SWEETLAND, C. J. The above-entitled cause is a bill in equity praying that the respondent trust company may be compelled specifically to perform its agreement to purchase a certain lot of land of which, it is alleged, the complainant is seized in fee simple. The Attorney General, representing the state of Rhode Island, has been joined as a party respondent.

It is alleged in the bill and appears in the copy of a deed made a part thereof that in 1847 said lot of land was conveyed by Elisha Watson to school district No. 6 of the town of South Kingstown. The sole consideration named in the deed was the grantor's "desire to aid and assist in diffusing the benefits of a good common school education among the inhabitants of school district No. 6 in the town of South Kingstown." and it is further recited in the deed that the lot was given and granted to "said school district for the purpose of maintaining thereon a district schoolhouse and its appurtenances for the benefit of the district school of said district and for no other use or purpose whatever." It is further alleged in said bill as follows: School district No. 6 embraced the village of Wakefield in the town of South Kingstown. From the date of the conveyance by Watson down to the year 1902 school district No. 6 maintained a good common school upon said lot. In 1902, in conformity with the statutes, the town of South Kingstown abolished the district system and adopted the town system of common public schools, and thereupon by force of the statute the title to all school properties in the town became vested in the complainant. The complainant continued to maintain a good common public school upon said lot until 1908, when by reason of changed conditions in the village of Wakefield it became desirable and necessary for the town to build a new school building upon a different lot of land. The new school thus erected has since been maintained by the town for the purpose of giving to the inhabitants of Wakefield and what was formerly School District No. 6 a good common school education. Thereafter the complainant has remained in possession of the lot in question in this suit. Before the filing of this bill the respondent trust company entered into an agreement with the complainant to purchase said lot, but now refuses to perform its agreement on the ground that the complainant cannot give a marketable title to the property. Thereupon the complainant began this suit to compel specific performance of said agreement.

When in the superior court the cause was ready for hearing for final decree certain questions of law arose which have been certified to this court as of such doubt and importance as to require our determination before further proceedings are had in the superior court. The questions are as follows:

"(1) Did the town of South Kingstown acquire under the deed from Elisha Watson a fee simple absolute in and to the property described in the bill of complaint?

"(2) Did the proceedings taken in the superior court in the case, entitled, 'Town of South Kingstown v. William B. Greenough, Attorney General,' which proceedings are set out in the record in this case, affect or limit the fee of the town of South Kingstown in and to said property?

"(3) Has the town of South Kingstown a marketable title in and to the property described in the bill of complaint?"

It should be said at the outset that by force of the statute, under which the school system of the complainant was changed, the complainant acquired no greater title to the tract in question than that possessed by school district No. 6.

In answer to the first question certified we say that under the deed from Elisha Watson the school district did not acquire a fee simple absolute in and to the tract of land in question, nor did the district have a determinable or qualified fee in the land, with the right of reverter and of re-entry remaining in the donor and his heirs, to be exercised in the event that the land shall cease to be used for the purpose specified in the deed.

The gift of Watson was for the purpose of promoting free public school education among the inhabitants of school district No. 6, and he plainly intended that his benefaction should continue to be employed in aid of that purpose. Such a gift is one for a public charitable use highly favored in law, and, when possible, supported by the courts. The school district received the gift in trust to carry out the charitable intent of the donor. The town, as successor to the district, now holds the land impressed with the same, trust. The omission of the words "trust" and "trustee" is of little...