Stuart v. Easton

Citations

• 170 U.S. 383
• 18 S. Ct. 650
• 42 L. Ed. 1078
• 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1553

Syllabus

<p>The construction and legal effect of a patent for land is matter for the court, and evidence to aid in that construction is incompetent.</p> <p>The clear intent of the act of the Province of Pennsylvania of March 11, 1752, authorizing trustees to acquire the land in question, was, that while the legal estate in fee in the land should be acquired by the trustees, the beneficial use or equitable estate was to be in the inhabitants of the county; and the ..provision following the authorization to acquire A tir land, “ and thereon to erect and build a court house and prison,” was no more than a direction to the trustees as to the use to be made of the land after it had been acquired.</p> <p>The.language of the habendum that the conveyance is “in trust,” nevertheless to and for the erecting thereon a court house for the public use* and service of the said county, and to and for no other use, intent or purpose whatsoever, under the decisions of the courts of Pennsylvania amounted simply to conforming the grant to the legislative authority previously given, and cannot be deemed to have imported a limitation of the fee.</p> <p>The purposes of the grant by the patent of 1764 of the lot in the centre of the public square at Easton, in conformity to the clear intent of the act ■ of 1752, was undoubtedly to vest an equitable .estate in the land in the inhabitants of the county, the trust in their favor being executed so soon as the county became capable of holding the title.</p> <p>If the grant be viewed as one merely to trustees to hold “ for the uses and purposes mentioned in the act of the assembly,-” it is clear that the fee was not upon a condition subsequent nor .one upon limitation.</p> <p>Without-positively determining whether the estate in the county is held charged with a trust for a charitable use, or is an unrestricted fee simple on the theory that the trustees were merely the link for passing the title authorized by the act of 1752, it is held, that the trial co