*1 458 Chancery records Court records Court
Circuit County public first of the enactment purchase up (in 1915)', time of laws, nuisance purchased, had any to be about if to see proceeding. public nuisance some involved ever been up for exam- new methods to set would Abstractors public nui- ining to cover records Court injunctions. public contained nuisance laws, sance Pope’s Digest, acts of Chapter embrace three 134 being Legislature, Act 118 Act 109 any acts, these section, There is no 1937. Act 331 of attempts repeal con- laws; the recordation injunction let the would these acts, struction binding subsequent would owners, in rein and orderbe. give expressed in is not acts that to these an effect recordation statutes. to our do violence and would acts, and is not avoided, neces- should be a construction Such by majority sary reached and result the conclusion in this case. concurring opinion is to direct atten-
Therefore, any possible misunderstanding against of the extent opinion. majority and effect of Williams 32. 2d 488 4-7379 S. W. Opinion delivered June 1944. *2 appel- H. for Featherston,
J. Lookadoo and Alfred lant.
Boyd appellee. Tackett, Kirby Appellee, J. District 32, School Holt, August brought ejectment 3, this suit in to re- possession cover aof certain school and the ground upon alleging acre which it was that situated, appellant, unlawfully L. W. Williams, detained and held possession judgment prayed of said of the land and school damages Appellee for unlawful detention. claimed ownership by warranty virtue of a deed Gray (widower) Special from S.S. to School August Appellant dated District, 5,1920. answered with general alleged ownership denial, of the one-acre tract by warranty and school located thereon virtue of Gray, August deed to him from S. dated S. 1943. Appellant alleged “by further virtue of his Gray, rights S. S. he in the said were owned S. S. and states that this acre of land was donated to Spe- the Wheeler cial School District to said Wheeler School purposes District for school or church and was to revert should school and church be discontinued or moved and this defendant states that the school was Kirby, has been and that no Arkansas,
moved to 1942; land since on this acre of March conducted of land has not used said acre School appurtenances thereon for school the use discontinued said date and has since other has moved said land for of said thereby great distance from same, land and a from said clause bringing the reversion and effect into full force Gray made to the said Wheeler in the deed the said S. S. to the said land title District and vested in this defend- has turn who vested together appellant, his sons, and that ant,” he, Sep- surrounding tract. all the land owned denying reply filed tember 20, orig- revert to the was ever to land' and *3 assigns, Gray, denied heirs or and inal owner, S. S. by appellee had been abandoned that the purposes. school sitting the trial court to
The was submitted cause finding appellee, jury, in a resulted as a land tract of had abandoned school district, question title thereto and that for school appel- appellant, quieted but that Williams, should be the school build- not abandoned had school district, lee, building maintaining keeping said ing, and “but was teacherage upon constructing the lands Kirby, it was the in- Arkansas; district at of said August Gray, deed of in the of the S. S. tention right grantee to remove should have 5,1920, building upon of said lands for abandonment the school appellee sixty' purposes,” and that should building. days remove said school which to From within awarding judgment building of the court, appeal. appellee, this comes to judg- challenges Appellant the correctness of the awarding building to trial court, ment of the appellee permission to remove said from point it now stands to a tract on which the one-acre appellee Kirby near the District schoolliouse, district, teacherage. used as be Special was consolidated District
Wheeler 'School Kirby District and made a School with appellee, has no school on March 21, consoli- since in Wheeler conducted conducting any has no intention" dation, tract of school in the one-acre present location, at to use its approximately Appellee, future. District, The from the District. miles distant Wheeler ap- question present value here proximately time of consolidation, At the $500. age within the enumerated
were five children of arrangements immediately were District, Wheeler to attend school the Center made for these children at Ridge about two miles the Wheeler District, School warranty Gray to from S. S. District. August Special dated Wheeler District, School provision: following “That contained the I, S. S. (widower), for and in consideration sum of dona- District said to Wheeler School for school and church pimp to me oses and revert should school and church or moved. be discontinued
Appellant, and his sons own all the land Williams, question August surrounding the one-acre tract in here. by warranty conveyed deed, S. S. 12, 1943, appellant, appellant here *4 in and moved school took the and is using his residence. it as appear dispute. to in
The material facts not be It is correctly the court that trial conceded found that the of land on which the school tract one-acre by the district located had abandoned ownership its to all school reverted S. Gray Gray in the clause the deed of the district, under to appellee’s right supra. as here The to building, turns the on construction therefore, to provision given Gray the above in deed to the be the light- think facts. We it plain provision, terms the of the above that clear, the one-acre tract of land ceased to used for be then title the to land and Gray. (The to thereon was. revert to S. S. purpose here.) church involved The issue not words "discontinued or moved” reference to discon- building, tinuance or removal of not the property, which was erected on which school was plain, conducted. think the as well as the intended, We meaning these words that to should Gray revert to or when the was either discontinued happened and both of these events have here. moved, it think also clear that We under the clause in supra, contemplated was it a deed, house be erected which school be' tract, could con- ground ducted. this acre of Otherwise, which alone was very value small could and would be of little or no nothing use to school district. find We appellee’s district 'that would warrant claim question. to the school The rule seems be provided well settled that unless otherwise the school the deed, building, when erected on the a becomes realty part passes with it. p. says:
In 42 Am. the text writer Jur., 199, § 18, general principle building perma- "The law that a nently fixed to the freehold becomes it, prima belonging a house is real estate, facie of the land on which it stands.” provision supra, base, created a deed, conditional or determinable fee. The writer in Vol. text p. says: J. § C. S., 110, "A base fee sim fee, ple simple subject fee or a determinable, to a conditional upon a fee with a limitation, limitation annexed that happening of some future event or contingency, automatically estate will pass by way terminate possibility may reverter . . . created deed. . . . Such a fee is created long deed in fee specified so as it is used for a provision with a shall revert to the if such *5 support use is and in discontinued, text,
463 135 W. 740, 199 Ark. Lane, v. cited case Johnson (Quoting headnote case we held: 2d and in tliat 853, Reporter) deed con “Where the South from veyed Western gift organization religious for loca as a land to a provided for use land if of a school and grantor, purposes revert to land should ceased the qualified conveyed fee’ base or ‘determinable, a grantor it had reverted eo instanti and land purposes, it was not for used ceased to be necessary regain, grantor in order to re-enter for title.” Company Railway v.
In Francisco St. Louis-San ap quoted with 2d we 807, Ark. 132 S. W. White, 56, Tiffany Property, proval Edition, Third on Real from granted for as when land “So, follows: § Yol. 1, 220, public purposes, a church, as for a schoolhouse, certain building, evidently grantor’s it like, purpose only, and used such shall be for intention end, shall such the estate use, on the cessation of that, re-entry bjr an estate of without (determinable fee) is kind now under consideration created.” holding in case of Rural
We think our Steele 2d 20 W. District No. 180 Ark. holding opposed controlling there is here. The language appellee’s deed in used contention. ‘‘ property to be used as follows: This this Steele case is its aban- and in case of school or church is to revert to as a church donment site, language grantor.” as same effect, This is, there had instant case. In the Steele case, and no school districts of two school been consolidation January, held The school summer of 1926. had been abandoned grantor when the deed to the district notified the school board that he was tak- ing possession under the reverter (Head- deed to the school district. clause We held: 2) took “Where note a school *6 reverting building under a deed the the church, in case the' was abandoned as a undisputed where the site, evidence showed an actual necessary building, abandonment of the it was not by declaring show official action school board the the ’’ property abandoned. From what we we conclude that said, building hád abandoned land and the thereon purposes; building, placed all school the upon part realty, the became land, therefore reverted with the land to under the reverter holding supra, and that the clause, trial court erred in judgment otherwise. The and the cause re- reversed, judgment awarding manded with directions to enter a possession and title to the land and school question to
appellant. concurring. J., The trial court found MoFaddin, adjudged original that the land had reverted to the finding grantor. judgment That because final, by appeal cross no the school district. Therefore arewe not now with the concerned of the rever- only question sion of the land. The to be answered, appeal, goes whether the is, with the land. I by majority. concur in the affirmative answer reached general In 22 it. R. L. 59 rule is stated: “The principle building permanently law is that a fixed to part prima the freehold becomes a it,of house facie belonging is real estate, the owner of the land on which Improvements permanent it stands. . . . of a char acter made on sent of thereto, attached without con by having one
owner, no title or interest, part realty, become and vest in the owner fee without reimbursement from if a him. So against erected on land will of landowner, or with part realty his out becomes a . consent, . . It has existing that an addition to an held, however, prem becomes the though permission, ises, erected in the absence of any agreement contrary. understanding tlie it is clear Tested above statement, therefore real estate and was a concur that reason I reverted with the and for land; in this result reached case. Corporation. Leonard Aviation Credit *7 4-7393 W. 2d delivered June
Opinion 19, 1944.