Hanna v. Washington School Township

Indiana Court of Appeals

Hanna v. Washington School Township

127 N.E. 583, 73 Ind. App. 382, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 128

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 1, 1920

DocketNo. 10,406

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 N.E. 583 (Hanna v. Washington School Township) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanna v. Washington School Township, 127 N.E. 583, 73 Ind. App. 382, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 128 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, C. J.

Complaint by appellee against appellants to quiet title. Judgment for appellee. - Jehu Parson, in 1890, in consideration of $150, sold the real estate in controversy, one and a half acres, to appellee “for school purposes.” Appellee erected a schoolhouse on said land and maintained a school therein for several years, when, because of the small number of pupils, the school was abandoned, after which the building was sold and removed. Appellants, who are the heirs of Jehu Parson, are in possession of and claim to own said land. Their contention is that the phrase “for school purposes” in the deed created a condition subsequent which has been breached. This contention cannot prevail. Newpoint Lodge, etc. v. Town of Newpoint (1894), 138 Ind. 141, 37 N. E. 650, and Higbee v. Rodeman (1891), 129 Ind. 244, 28 N. E. 442. Judgment affirmed.

Enloe, P. J., not participating.

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

McMahan, C. J.

Complaint by appellee against appellants to quiet title. Judgment for appellee. - Jehu Parson, in 1890, in consideration of $150, sold the real estate in controversy, one and a half acres, to appellee “for school purposes.” Appellee erected a schoolhouse on said land and maintained a school therein for several years, when, because of the small number of pupils, the school was abandoned, after which the building was sold and removed. Appellants, who are the heirs of Jehu Parson, are in possession of and claim to own said land. Their contention is that the phrase “for school purposes” in the deed created a condition subsequent which has been breached. This contention cannot prevail. Newpoint Lodge, etc. v. Town of Newpoint (1894), 138 Ind. 141, 37 N. E. 650, and Higbee v. Rodeman (1891), 129 Ind. 244, 28 N. E. 442. Judgment affirmed.

Enloe, P. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 N.E. 583, 73 Ind. App. 382, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanna-v-washington-school-township-indctapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack