Univ. of North Carolina v. Maultsby
| Citation | 8 Ired.Eq. 257,43 N.C. 257 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1852 |
| Parties | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSIAH MAULTSBY ET AL. |
The act of 1850, ch. 62, directing the personal estate of any deceased person, that might remain in the hands of an executor or administrator for seven years, unclaimed, &c. to be paid over to the President and Directors of the Literary Board, is not unconstitutional, though such property, as it might accrue, had been directed to be paid to the University, by the acts of 1784 and 1809, Rev. Stat. ch. 46, sec. 20
It is competent for the Legislature to enact, that an administrator should, after a reasonable time, pay an unclaimed surplus of the estate to any person, charged by law with the keeping and securing of the same, for the benefit of the creditors and next of kin. And they may, when they think proper, from time to time, change such depositary.
The University of North Carolina is a public institution and body politic, and, therefore, subject to the Legislative control. It was not only, originally, the creature of the Legislature, but it is absolutely dependant upon the Legislative will for its continuing existence.
The fact, that private donations have been made to the University, does not alter the nature of the foundation, nor the character of the corporation.
Appeal from the Court of Equity of Columbus county, at the Fall term, 1851.
This was a bill filed in 1851, by the Trustees of the University of North Carolina, alleging, that one Charlotte Rouse, of Columbus county, died intestate in the year 1841; and that administration on her estate was granted to Josiah Maultsby, at August Term, 1841, of the County Court of the said county; that the said administrator still has in his possession a large amount of the estate of his intestate, remaining unclaimed; and the bill prays for an account of such estate, and that the amount may be paid and delivered over to the plaintiffs.
To this bill, a general demurrer was filed by the defendant.John H. Bryan, with whom were W. H. Haywood and Moore, for the plaintiffs , submitted the following argument:
The constitution enjoins the establishment of one or more Universities, where useful learning shall be encouraged and promoted. The act of 1789, whereby the University of North Carolina is established, declares that a University, supported by permanent funds, and well endowed, would have the most direct tendency to answer the above purpose, “in the education of the rising generation.” The same recital is in substance made in the preamble to the second act of '89, which is as follows: &c.
And by the second section, “all property which has heretofore, or shall hereafter, escheat to the State, is vested in the trustees.” The word ““escheat,” as used in this act, has been held to embrace every case of property falling to the sovereign, for want of an owner--2 Hay. 198; 4 T R. 243; Dig. Fran. A. 1. By the 8th and 9th sections of the original act, subscriptions are invited from individuals, &c.
By the act of 1809, Rev. Stat. ch. 46, sec. 20, all sums of money, or other estate, which shall now remain, or shall hereafter remain in the hands or possession of any executor or administrator, for seven years, &c. unclaimed by suit, &c. shall be paid over to the trustees, &c.
By the act in question, (1850-1, ch. 62.) this statute (1809,) is repealed, and money, or other estate, remaining in the hands of executors or administrators more than four years, &c. is to be paid to the Literary Board.
The University is, in a legal sense, a private corporation: it was undoubtedly established for public purposes; but that is by no means the test. Banks and Railroads are established for public purposes, and for the public good; and, although the State may own the greater portion of the stock, they are still private corporations in law. A public corporation is one which exercises some portion of the sovereign power, which is delegated to it, because such powers may be more conveniently exercised by such an instrument. Such are municipal corporations of various kinds. Angel on Corp. 27, 28, 29; Dartmouth Coll. case, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) Rep. 636; Mills v. Williams, 11 Ired. 558.
The University may sue and be sued, and has a private fund out of which a judgment may be satisfied. A large portion of the funds of the University have been derived from private donations, which were invited by the act of '89, and which, with the donations made by the State, constitute a common fund, solemnly dedicated by the Legislature to a common and most useful purpose--the education of the youth of the State. The State has no more right, in good faith, to resume its grants, than have the individual donors.
The trustees of the University have an interest and a legal right to exercise the powers, and to perform the duties imposed upon them by law, and which they have assumed; and it by no means follows that these rights are not regarded as valuable in contemplation of law, because they are not attended with individual pecuniary profit. The right of suffrage is the exercise of a public trust, and yet it is a much valued private right.
If, then, the University is to be regarded as a private corporation, as the authorities cited show, then by the acts of 1789 and 1809, a contract was made with this corporation, whereby a vested right to this property accrued, and the act of '50-51 violates the obligation of this contract, and is thus repugnant to the constitution of the United States.
This act is contrary to our own Bill of Rights: the University is deprived of property “contrary to the law of the land”--this means, as held by our Courts, some judicial proceedings, in which the party whose rights are to be affected can be heard, before judgment. It must, from the force of the term law, mean a certain established mode of proceeding, not a single temporary act.
But even public or municipal corporations may stand, in relation to a franchise or property conferred upon them by the Legislature, on the same footing as a private corporation. As in the case of Bailey v. the Corporation of New York, 3 Hill (N. Y.) Rep. 531; Angel on Corp. 30, 31; with regard to the Croton Water Works. And suppose the case of a grant to a town, by the Legislature, of a lot of ground for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Wyoming Agricultural College v. Irvine
...given of such an institution or corporation. (Trustees, &c., v. Winston, 5 S. & P., 17; Louisville v. Univ., 15 B. Mon., 650; Univ. v. Maultsby, 8 Ired. Eq., 257; Head Univ., 47 Mo. 226.) In some states the courts have gone to the extent of holding that organizations such as state universit......
-
Mial v. Ellington
...to private corporations). The same distinction was made and the same principle clearly enunciated by Ruffin, C. J., in University v. Maultsby, 43 N. C. 257. He says: "But the court is further of the opinion that the university is a public institution and body politic, and hence subject to l......
-
Mial v. Ellington
...private corporations). The same distinction was made and the same principle clearly enunciated by Ruffin, C.J., in University v. Maultsby, 43 N.C. 257. He says: "But the court is further of the opinion that the university is a public institution and body politic, and hence subject to legisl......
-
Ross v. Trustees of University
...exclusive property and domain of the government itself, and therefore, it is in the strictest sense a public corporation." In University v. Maultsby, 43 N.C. 257, the court "It is true that, since incorporation, there may have been donations to the college: but that would not alter the natu......