THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE STATE OF INDIANA
SUPREME COURT
DECEMBER TERM, 1852
55 U.S. 268 | 14 L. Ed. 416
If mere tardiness in asserting their pretensions, were all that could be imputed to the appellants, this, of itself, would place them in a position which could not commend them the countenance of courts of justice; but, this delay is by no means the only or the least imputation, resting upon the course of the appellants; for we see that, after calling upon the appellees for satisfaction of their demand, the appellants abandoned that demand, proclaiming thereby to the representatives of Goree (if indeed they were then in possession of the subject,) permission to apply it in conformity with the will of their testator. The appellants, it is not pretended, ever held or claimed the subject in dispute, except in their representative capacity, and in trust for the creditors and legatees of their testator. In the interval between the abandonment of their first and the institution of their second demand by the complainants, those executors have, in fulfilment of their trust, handed over the subject to those for whom they held it under the will; have accounted with the authorities to whom they were responsible, and have received from those authorities a full acquittance. Under these circumstances, to hold them liable to the demands of the appellants, would in effect be to render penal the regular discharge of their duty.
This aspect of the cause we regard as fully warranting the decree of the District Court, dismissing the bill of the complainants - that decree is therefore affirmed.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with costs.
In 1804, Congress passed an act,
In 1806, the Secretary of the Treasury located a particular township in the Vincennes district, for the use of that district; and when, in 1806, the territorial government incorporated a “Board of Trustees of the Vincennes University,” the grant made in 1804 attached to this Board, although, for the two preceding years, there had been no grantee in existence.
Under the ordinance of 1787, made applicable to Indiana by an act of Congress, the territorial government of Indiana had power to pass this act of incorporation.
The language of the act of Congress, by which Indiana was admitted into the Union, did not vest the above township in the legislature of the State.
The Board of Trustees of the University was not a public corporation, and had no political powers. The donation of land for its support was like a donation by a private individual; and the legislature of the State could not rightfully exercise any power by which the trust was defeated.
THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, by a writ of error, issued under the
The manner in which the case arose, and the laws relating to it, are stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Judah, with whom was Mr. Dunham, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. O. H. Smith, for the State of Indiana.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error contended:
1. That the effect of the reservation in the act of Congress passed in 1804, was a grant.
The defendant, and Judge Smith, of the Supreme Court of Indiana, assert that this is not a grant, because there was not a grantee in esse; and that the reservation could only become effectual to pass the title by an appropriation, to be made by Congress, or under its authority.
In Wilcox v. Jackson, (13 Peters, 498,) this court, at page 512, define “appropriation” as follows: “That is nothing more nor less than setting apart the thing for some particular use.” And afterwards, in the same case, (page 513,) the court say: “But we go further, and say, that, whensoever a tract of land shall once have been legally appropriated to any purpose, from that moment, the land thus appropriated becomes severed from the mass of public lands, and that no subsequent law, or proclamation, or sale, would be construed to embrace it, or operate upon it, although no reservation was made of it.”
Was the Gibson township so appropriated? It was reserved for a special purpose. It was located in pursuance to the reservation. Was there any thing more necessary to set it apart for the particular use?
But, say the counsel for the State and Judge Smith, though
If, as a general rule, it is true, that there cannot be a grant without a grantee in esse, it is as true that there are exceptions.
A grant, in case of a charity, or of the dedication of land to a public use, is good without a grantee in esse. Town of Paulet v. Clark, 9 Cr. 292; Beaty v. Kurtz, 2 Pet. 566; Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. 435; and in Vidal v. Girard‘s Executors, 2 How. 127; at pages 192, 193, it is stated, that donations given to the establishment of colleges, &c., are charities in the sense of the common law.
2. That the territorial legislature had the power to apply to use the township appropriated by Congress, and did apply it by the act of incorporation.
The counsel for the State of Indiana made the following points:
First. The complainants have no such corporate existence as would authorize and empower them to sue. 2 B. A. 482, note a, last edition; and see the extracts from their records in evidence.
Second. The suit is barred by the statute of limitations.
Third. The suit is barred by twenty years adverse possession, as the State, and those claiming under the State, by purchase and lease, had held adversely more than twenty years before any suit was brought by the University to recover the possession, even if the former actions which were dismissed could aid this suit, which is denied.
Fourth. The case does not come within the principles of an executory devise, and would not avail the complainants even if it were an executory devise. 17 Serg. & Rawle, 88; 5 H. & J. 392; 9 Ohio, 203; 12 Mass. 537; 16 Pick. 107; 3 Pet. 101; 4 Dana, 355; 3 Pet. 146; 9 Ves. 399; 9 Mass. 419; 7 Ves. 69; 9 Ves. 399; 10 Ves. 522.
Fifth. The
Sixth. The case does not embrace the principles of a dedication to public or pious uses, so as to sustain this claim. 2 Pet. 566; 6 Pet. 431, 498; 6 Paige, 639; 6 Wend. 667; 4 Paige, 510; 7 Ohio, 219.
Eighth. The doctrines of estoppel, in their most rigid application, can only permit the complainants to retain what they have already received, and for this the State will not contend.
Ninth. In any and all events, the funds were public funds, and the legislature of the State had competent authority to change their direction to any other seminary of learning at will. Had the funds been the private funds of the complainants, and had they been vested with them, there might have been some pretext for the assumption, that the acts of the Indiana legislature, endowing the State University, were unconstitutional. 4 Wheat. 430; 4 Pet. Con. Rep. 536.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.
This case is before us on a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, under the
The bill was filed under an act of the legislature of Indiana, of 1846, which authorized the trustees of the Vincennes University to file a bill in chancery, in the nature of an act of disseisin against the State, to try their right to the seminary township in Gibson county. The facts stated in the bill are substantially as follows:
The Indiana Territory was organized by the
The act of the 29th November, 1806, and the supplement thereto, passed the 17th of September, 1807, established the
In virtue of the above acts, the complainants became possessed of the said township of land, and so continued during the territorial government. The same rights and powers in the corporation, as they existed under the territorial government, were secured by the 1st section of the 12th article of the constitution of Indiana. Between the years 1806 and 1820, complainants sold 4,000 acres of the land, and rented a part of the residue. A college building was constructed by them at Vincennes.
On the 22d January, 1820, a joint resolution of the legislature of Indiana was approved, appointing a superintendent for the seminary township, with power to rent the improved lands, to collect the rents, and to account to the State. And, on the 2d of January, 1822, the legislature appointed commissioners to sell the lands in that township. This seems to have been done, on the assumption that the board of trustees had expired through their own negligence. The lands were sold, and the money received was paid into the State Treasury. A part of the consideration money on this sale had not been collected when this bill was filed.
The complainants pray that an account may be taken of the proceeds, and interest of the sales of the lands and the rents received by the state; and that the same may be paid to the complainants, &c.
The defendant‘s answer denies the equity of the bill, and relies upon the statute of limitations. It also denies that the territorial government had any power to incorporate the plaintiffs; that the title remained in the United States, it never having been appropriated to any special grantee; that under the
The act of Congress, which organized the territory of Indiana, provided, that so much of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territory of the United States north-west of the
Under the ordinance, the legislature of the territory was vested with general legislative powers, restricted only by the articles contained in that instrument. It had power to grant an act of incorporation, with all the functions necessary to effectuate its objects. There can be no question, therefore, that the corporate powers vested in the plaintiffs, by the legislature of the territory, were legitimately conferred. And these powers were not affected, and could not be affected by the constitution of the State. It provided that “all rights, contracts, and claims, both as respects individuals and bodies corporate, shall continue as if no change had taken place in this government.”
If the Board of Trustees, by a failure to elect when vacancies occurred, or through any other means, became reduced to a less number than was authorized to act by the charter, the corporation was not thereby dissolved. In such a case, its franchises would be suspended only, until its functions were restored by legislative action. This was done by the act of the legislature of the 17th of February, 1838. In that act the territorial act of incorporation is recognized, the existence of six of the trustees admitted, the vacancies supplied, and the board, thus constituted, was organized. If, therefore, the corporation by non-user had become liable to a judicial process of forfeiture, after this act, such a procedure could not be instituted.
The proviso in the act of 1838, could only operate, so as to secure any rights which the State might be supposed to have, in the Gibson township.
The reservations for the seminaries of learning and for schools, are made in the same terms, and in some respects, must rest on the same principles. In all the Western States, north of the Ohio, similar reserves for schools and seminaries of learning have been made. In the case of Wilcox v. Jackson, (13 Peters,
In the States where school lands have been reserved, the legislatures have enacted laws to carry out and effectuate the benign policy of the general government. Special authority has been given to individuals elected, in the respective townships, to lease the lands, sue for rents, &c., exercising, to some extent, corporate powers. The citizens within the township are the beneficiaries of the charity. The title to these lands has never been considered as vested in the State; and it has no inherent power to sell them, or appropriate them to any other purpose than for the benefit of schools. For the exercise of the charity under the laws, the title is in the township. No patent has been issued by the Federal government, in such cases, as it has not been considered necessary. For the sale of school lands, the consent of Congress has been obtained, as that changes the character of the fund.
The title to the seminary lands, it is contended, did not vest in complainants, as they are not named in the reservation, and had no existence for two years afterwards.
This question is not to be decided, on the principles which apply to an ordinary grant, from one individual to another. The title partakes of the nature of an executory devise, or a dedication of property to public use. In the case of Inglis v. The Sailors’ Snug Harbor, (3 Peters, 126,) this court say, “What objection can there be to this as a valid executory devise, which is such a disposition of lands, that thereby no estate vests at the death of the devisor, but only on some future contingency?” If the words, “reserved for the use of a seminary of learning,” were indorsed on a town plat when made, there is no doubt that the title would vest in a corporation created afterwards for the establishment and government of such an institution. If it be reserved for the public use, the title would vest in the public, so soon as a public should exist in the town. Trustees of the McIntyre Poor School v. The Zanesville Canal Company, 9 Ohio Rep. 203; Cincinnati v. The Lessee of White, 6 Peters, Rep. 435; Barclay et al. v. Howell‘s Lessee, 6 Peters, Rep. 498; New Orleans v. the United States, 10 Peters, Rep. 662.
Land, at common law, may be granted to pious uses, before there is a grantee in existence competent to take it; and in the mean time, the fee will be in abeyance. The Town of Pawlet v. Clark et al. 9 Cranch, 292; Witman v. Lex, 17 Serg. & Rawle, 88.
“When a corporation is to be brought into existence by some
There was no uncertainty in this appropriation. The township was designated, and the purpose stated, for which it was reserved. And there can be no doubt, from the authorities, that the right vested, so soon as a capacity was given to the corporation to receive it; prior to this it remained in the federal government. This is the settled doctrine on that subject.
If, on general principles, the title to this township cannot be considered as vested in the State of Indiana, it is contended it so vested by the provision in the sixth section of the
The words of the act seem to be so clear as to admit of but one construction. A township, in addition to the one formerly reserved, is appropriated and vested in the legislature. The former township is only referred to, to show that the one then appropriated was in addition to it. The Gibson township had before been appropriated. A part of it had been sold, and a part was held under leases. Whether we regard the words used, or their grammatical arrangement, the intention of Congress seems to be clearly expressed.
In the
By this latter act, the Gibson Township Seminary was recognized, and its present government sanctioned.
In the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (4 Wheat. 629,) Chief Justice Marshall says: “If the act of incorporation be a grant of political power, if it create a civil institution to be employed in the administration of the government, or if the funds of the college be public property, or if the State of New Hampshire, as a government, be alone interested in its transactions, the subject is one in which the legislature of the State may act, according to its own judgment, unrestrained by any limitation of its power, imposed by the Constitution of the United States.” Again, he says, (634,) “So far as respects its funds, it is a private corporation. Do its objects stamp on it a different character? Are the trustees and professors public officers, invested with any portion of political power, partaking in any degree in the administration of civil government, and performing duties which flow from the sovereign authority?” He continues: “The character of civil institutions does not grow out of their incorporation, but out of the manner in which they are formed, and the objects for which they are created.” “The right to change them is not founded on their being incorporated, but on their being the instruments of government, created for its purposes.” “The trustees are not public officers, nor is it a civil institution, participating in the administration of the government; but a charity school, or a seminary of education, incorporated for the preservation of its property, and the perpetual application of that property to the objects of its creation.”
In the same case, Mr. Justice Story says: “Public corporations are generally esteemed such as exist for public political purposes only, such as towns, cities, parishes and counties; and, in many respects, they are so, although they involve some private interests; but, strictly speaking, public corporations are such only as are founded by the government for public purposes, where the whole interests belong to the government.”
The seminary township in question, was not a donation from the State, but from the United States. It was reserved and designated out of the public lands, before they were offered for sale, and consequently so munificent an endowment for a literary institution must have increased the value of the public lands, in that part of the State, and made them more desirable. And this consideration, no doubt, induced Congress to have designated, for seminary purposes, a township of land in each land district. Every purchaser of the public lands, in each dis-
The legislative power of the Territory and State, in advancing the public interests, was bound to afford all the facilities necessary to carry out and secure the benign objects of Congress, in making these township reservations. This was done by a wise and liberal act, in regard to the Gibson township. The corporators were vested with all the necessary powers to carry out the trust. And for the purposes of the trust, the title became vested in them, as soon as they acquired a capacity to receive it. This corporation had no political powers, and could, in no legal sense, be considered as officers of the State. They were not appointed by the State. Their perpetuity depended upon the exercise of their own functions; and they were no more responsible for the performance of their duties, than other corporations established by the State to execute private trusts.
So far as regards the trust confided to the complainants, there is nothing which, by construction, can make it a public corporation. The donation in no sense proceeded from the State. It was made by the Federal government, and is no more subject to State power, than if it had been given by an individual for the same purpose. An act of incorporation being necessary, would not be withheld to give effect to a private donation of land, for the purpose of establishing a literary institution. Its benefits would be enjoyed by the public generally, but this would not make it a public corporation.
The complainants, by accepting and exercising their corporate powers, acquired certain rights, and made certain contracts, which could not be impaired by the legislature. They constituted an eleemosynary corporation, in which the State has no property, and can exercise no power to defeat the trust. But this has been done by the legislature, not only by appointing an agent to collect the funds due to the corporation, and paying them into the State treasury; but, by selling the lands, they have diverted the fund, for the preservation and management of which, the corporation was instituted. This was an extraordinary proceeding, and was wholly without authority. The result is, that the complainants are stript of their powers, and the University which they established, with the sanction of the legislature, is left without revenue.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY, Mr. Justice CATRON, and Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.
Mr. Chief Justice TANEY.
I dissent from the opinion of the court.
I do not propose to enter fully into the argument of the case, because I concur entirely in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State, which is set out at large in the record; and shall therefore briefly state the principles upon which my own opinion is founded.
1. It must be admitted that the State court had no jurisdiction in this case beyond that which the law of the State authorized it to exercise. And in revising their judgment, our jurisdiction is equally limited. The law, under which this suit was brought, authorized the Board of Trustees of the Vincennes University, to file a bill in chancery against the State, in the nature of an action of disseisin, for the purpose of trying the right of the trustees to the lands in question.
The trustees, therefore, are not entitled to a decree in their favor, unless they can show a legal title to the lands, such as would enable them to maintain the common-law writ of entry, sur disseisin, that is, they must be seised of the lands in fee-simple.
2. Indiana was created a separate territory, and its powers and rights, as a territorial government, defined by the
The
3. This reservation from sale, as well as the reservation of the
4. The act of the territorial government of 1806, incorporating this board of trustees, does not grant nor profess to grant the lands to the board. And if it had done so, the act would have been void and inoperative, because the territorial legislature had no right to grant lands which belonged to the United States; nor to exercise any power over them, without the authority of Congress.
5. The
My brethren have put a different construction on this clause of the law of 1816, and regard this grant as extending only to the additional township mentioned in the law. But with every respect for their opinion, it appears plain to me that this township, as well as the additional one, are both granted to the State by Congress. And I am confirmed in this opinion, because, with all the research I have been able to make, I have not found a single instance in which lands reserved in a territory for the purposes of education, were not afterwards granted to the State, as the trustee to administer the trust, the school sections in the several townships, as well as others.
6. Upon these grounds, I think the plaintiffs in error have not a legal title to this land, and had no right to sell or dispose of it, nor in any way to control the proceeds; and that under the grant from Congress, in the
7. The error in the opinion, appears to me to have arisen from regarding the reservation from sale for the purposes of education, as divesting the legal title of the United States, and putting it in abeyance, until some new body was brought into existence,
It is not necessary to this opinion to discuss the doctrine of abeyance, upon which so much learning and talent has been displayed by Mr. Fearne, in his treatise on Contingent Remainders. It is sufficient to state under what circumstances the title, in the eye of the law, is said to be in abeyance. And Comyns, in his Digest, tells us, that “when the fee or freehold of the land is not vested in any one, but stands solely in consideration of law, it is said to be in abeyance, or in nubibus.”
I cannot regard the title to lands reserved from sale by Congress, for the purposes of education, as standing in this condition. A reservation is not a grant. It does not pass the title out of the United States, but leaves it where it was before. The uniform practice of the government, and of judicial decision also, appears to have proceeded on the ground that the title remained in the United States, until it was afterwards transferred by the authority of Congress. It is not usual, it is true, to issue patents for these lands, but they have been granted by acts of Congress, which the courts have always recognized as valid conveyances. And I am not aware of any case in which the validity of these conveyances of reserved lands has been doubted by the court; or in which it has been suggested that the title was out of the United States, and in abeyance from the time of the reservation. If such be the result of a reservation, the subsequent conveyance of Congress is of no value. And who is to protect the reserved lands from trespasses and depredations, while the title is in abeyance?
In the case of Gaines and others v. Nicholson and others, reported in 9 Howard, 356, the title to a section reserved for schools, was the matter in dispute. It did not, it is true, involve the question now before us. But it appears, in that case, that the section was one of those reserved for schools in the different townships in the Territory of Mississippi, by an
8. If, however, these lands were conveyed to the trustees, by virtue of the act of the territorial legislature of 1806, yet they were but agents of the State, without any private individual interests, and have no ground therefore for this proceeding in equity against the State. The whole fund was created by the public for public purposes. And in the case of the Dartmouth College, (4 Wheat. 629,) the court said, “If the act of incorporation be a grant of political power, if it create a civil institution to be employed in the administration of the government, or if the funds of the college be public property, or if the State of New Hampshire, as a government, be alone interested in its transactions, the subject is one in which the legislature of the State may act according to its own judgment, unrestrained by any limitation of its power imposed by the Constitution of the United States.” Here the funds are contributed entirely by the public for a public purpose, and these appellants have no private individual interest, and allege none in their bill in behalf of themselves or others, which entitles them to maintain a suit against the State. They are public agents for a public purpose, and nothing more, and so describe themselves. The laws of the State, which directed the appropriation of the fund to the uses for which it was dedicated, are therefore constitutional and valid, under the decision above referred to, and in my opinion the decree of the Supreme Court of the State ought to be affirmed.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Indiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this cause be, and the same