Episcopal City Mission v. Appleton

117 Mass. 326, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 229
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 24, 1875
StatusPublished
Cited by35 cases

This text of 117 Mass. 326 (Episcopal City Mission v. Appleton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Episcopal City Mission v. Appleton, 117 Mass. 326, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 229 (Mass. 1875).

Opinion

Gray, C. J.

Although the words “ upon condition,” in a conveyance of real estate, are apt words to create a condition, any breach of which will forfeit the estate, yet they are not to be allowed that effect when the intention of the grantor, as manifested by the whole deed, is otherwise. Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1, 19, and cases cited. Attorney General v. Wax Chandlers’ Co. L. R. 6 H. L. 1. We are of opinion that such an intention does appear on the face of the deed from William Appleton to the Episcopal City Mission.

The purpose of the conditional paragraph is to define and regulate the use of the estate by the grantee, not by the grantor or his heirs. There is no reason for giving to the words at the beginning of this paragraph, “ upon and subject to the condition,” a more technical construction than to the like words introducing the second clause, “ and also upon the further condition.” But both clauses cannot be construed as conditions; because, upon that construction, a breach of the first would, upon entry by the grantor or his heirs, forfeit the whole estate, and leave nothing in the grantee to which the last part of the second clause could apply. The second clause can therefore have effect only by way of restriction, and the first clause must have a like interpretation and effect.

[330]*330It follows that upon the facts found by the justice of this court before whom the case was heard, the petition should be

Cfranted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Queen City Park Assoc. v. Gale
3 A.2d 529 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1938)
Everett Factories & Terminal Corp. v. Oldetyme Distillers Corp.
15 N.E.2d 829 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Mickleson v. Gypsy Oil Co.
1925 OK 88 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Amory v. Trustees of Amherst College
229 Mass. 374 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1918)
South Memphis Land Co. v. Memphis Interurban Co.
135 Tenn. 353 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1916)
Brady v. Gregory
97 N.E. 452 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Callahan
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 260 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1907)
Thornton v. City of Natchez
41 So. 498 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1906)
Bain v. Parker
90 S.W. 1000 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)
MacKenzie v. Trustees of the Presbytery
61 A. 1027 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1905)
Wilson v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
75 N.E. 128 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Minard v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.
139 F. 60 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, 1905)
Goodale
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 191 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1905)
Welch v. Austin
68 L.R.A. 189 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1905)
Buck v. City of Macon
85 Miss. 580 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1904)
Thornton v. Mayor of Natchez
129 F. 84 (Fifth Circuit, 1904)
Goldberg
1 Davis. L. Ct. Cas. 119 (Massachusetts Land Court, 1903)
Los Angeles University v. Swarth
107 F. 798 (Ninth Circuit, 1901)
Clapp v. Wilder
50 L.R.A. 120 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 Mass. 326, 1875 Mass. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/episcopal-city-mission-v-appleton-mass-1875.