Union County star and Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1859-1864, 1859-11-11

corner OF MaTkct street OF suNclent from
to erect Jail thereon, provided that the
said Christopher Seebold convey unto the
said Commissioners or their successors in
office, sufficient quantity for Jail yard,
bounded on the north by where the Jail is
to be erected in the said town." On the
9th January, 1918, in pursuance of this
act Of Assembly, Christopher Seebold and
wife conveyed the Jail yard lot to the Com
missioners, BY name aud their successors
in office, in trust for the use of the county
of Union, and the habendum is unto the
said Commissioners of Union county and
to their successors in Office in trust for
the use of the county of Union for ever.
Mr.. Seebold took possession of the strip of
land given him iu exchange.
Under an act of 22d March, 1855, the
county of Union was divided, BY the cree
tion of new county called Snyder, and
the seat Of justice in Union county was
removed from New Berlin to Lewisburg;
and on the S,h April, 1857, the Legisla-
ture passed an Act Of Assembly appoint
ing Trustees to sell the public buildings
in New Berlin belonging to the county,
and, after deducting the costs of sale, to
divide the proceeds equally between the
counties of Union and Snyder. The
Trustees advertised the court house, Jail,
and other buildings and land belonging to
the county, for sale, and the Plaintiffs
heirs Of Christopher Seebold, deceased,
brought two Ejectments, one for the lot
on which the court house and offices we're
erected, containing an acre and quarter,
and the other for the Jail 10. and Jail erec-
ted on it, containing one fourth OF an acre;
alleging, that, inasmuch as the courts were
no longer held in New Berlin, nor the Jail
used FOR the confinement Of prisoners, that
both lots, with all the buildings upon
them, reverted back to them as the heirs
Of the original grantor. Both cases were
argued together, and as the same leading
principle governs each Of them, they will
be considered together.
The provision in the act of Sth March,
1915, is that full and sufficient Deed, in
fee simple, shall be rendered to the Com
missioners, and no conveyance for any less
estate or for limited fee, clogged and
confined with conditions or qualifications
of any sort, would have fulfilled the re-
quirements of the Legislature. Accord
iDgly, the grantors use, in strict conformi-
ty to the Legislative will, the very same
clear and expressive language in the Deed
to the county Commissioners, which gave
to the county Of Union, an absolute estate
in fee simple. But it is said there was
no valuable consideration for this convey
ance. This is mistake, for the Legisla-
ture fixed the price, which was accepted
by Mr.. Seebold, and received by him in
full, having been paid to him, under an
Order by the Commissioners of the coun-
ty on the county Treasurer, in the usual
form. (Kerlin VS. Campbell, Sd Harris, ,500) |
Any other construction would make the
Deed fraud upon the citizens who erected /
the court house, and upon the county that
erected afterwards the county offices and
the county Jail, by large expenditure Of
the county funds.
1t would, indeed, be a strange result,
.hat,. after forty years uninterrupted pos
session by the county of Union, under
conveyance from the ancestor in fee sim
pie, it should be found, that when under the
sanction of the Legislature, these lots and
are to be sold as the property OF
he county of Union for the benefit of all
hose residing within her ancient limits,
.ha: they belong to the heirs of Christo-
pher Seebold, man who neither erected
he court house, county offices, or Jail.
Could it have been contemplated by any
,ne, that these individuals, by any virtue
If any residuary or remaining interest of
my kind left in their ancestor, should be-
,ome the only legitimate occupants of
he Jail and public buildings of the coun-
y of Union?
This can not be the law, and we are
therefore Of opinion, that, whether with or
Without the parol evidence introduced up
N the trial, the Plaintiffs were not enti-
led to recover in either case. The case
# the Jail lot is perhaps stronger than the
,ther, as part of it was conveyed in ex-
.hauge for portion of the first lot in pur-
uauce Of special act of the Legislature
md the transaction was especially bene6-
ial to their ancestor.
judgment affirmed in both cases.