The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-01-26
Memphis ~ Charleston r. R. Co. e 4
al. VS.. w. n. NeighbOrs, et al.
Opinion of the Court by SIMRALL, J.

CeplcHUeI 1000 conveyed TO the M. u 4. L,
K. Co. about eleven acres of land in tn
town of Cornth.
In the deed to the Company after tn,
words "have this day given and by these
presents grant, convey and confirm unto tn,
Memphis Charleston r. r. Co. and theil
successors in Office" follows the hdbendat,
!, clause in these words: "to have and to hole
the same with all the appurtenances'
"for the only proper use of said Railroad
8 company in the construction of ware
. houses, water stations, machine shops
! wagon yards, ana for depot purposes gener-
ally"
Afterwards the M. & G, r. r. Co. convey
3 ed by deed an undivided half in Joint use in
|. said land to the Mobile & Ohio Il. r. Co.
The NJ. & G. r. r. Co. did not erect
, buildings of the character named in the
deed, except a depot building but bpilt q
large hotel and an express office on the land
william Lesley died in 1871, and his wife
Elizabeth died in 1874. Il is not suggested
that they even made objection to the erec-
ton of these buildings by the railroad com
pany' CUT they evidently permitted the
same without intimation that il was in
VOCATION of the terms of the grant.
On this state of facts the cOmplainants as
helrs at law OF Lesley and his wife Eliza
beth, filed their Bill in Equity praying that
the deed OF their ancestor should be cancel
! leo, as well as the subsequent deed from th.
! NJ. q Z. K. Il. Co. to the NJ. 81 o. r r co
and for an account for the rent of the land
1nere Is also general allegation OF fraud
IN the Dill, that complainants' anci stor was
induced TO make the conveyance on the rem
resentation that the particular use of The
land specified in the deed would pnhancts
tne value OF his adj AGENT lands. But no spe-
CHG acts showing fraud are stated.
Inc theory or the DIll Is that the GRANT
VIA; MADE upon condition subsequent |
mnlcn having been broken, determined the |
estate OF the grantee, and vested it i'm them |
as heirs of the grantpr.
IL seems the allegation of fraud was NOT
relied on as distinct ground of relief. hnt
on" ny Ia ara OF the theory just stated.
The bull was demurred to. and tho do
murrer presented the questions dpcidnd ~,
the appeal. Held: Oh
l. Subsequent conditions are those which
ope5dte upon an estate already vested. and
ren9er IL liable to be defeated. Under the
naSses n - system st OF conVeyancing, the estate
passes 10 the grantee by the deed as com
piete!y as hy the ancient formula of livar1
VI Selzln, and remains in him. when snhiac, :
20 70 ueIeasance, until resumed by the oraStor '
IoT condition broken. oN''oi +
H. Inc mere on-performance of a con- L
iio'oh Subsequent does not, ipsO fuct0 defeat I
ne estate; but it is for the grantee r. oiaot f
'n; 10 insist upon forfeiture. or to il
' va eve III ne estate remains in the praoten II
M JJapapie or alienation by him, notwith, i:
o"huliS TIE breach, until it is put An end ti
qulvalent to it. '0 siahCor
nnr d' nnere the grantor elects to insist a
d ION preach of the condition, the proner t.
GinIuy Is at law, as a court of eo1itv Viii Al
20 i e us ald to enforce either \ nenaltu
~ = oiieiCure, q Story Eq, 8 13l9 HI
~. a court Of equity ALWAYS had ,ur;. ~
LION 10 protect the title of the true own
possession against adversary deeds which h.
ao oeen obtained BY fraud and WIZ in
~ NJ oe set up to cloud the title of tbn RI
Y Tho til
n;.a; Inc Statute Code 1871, extends this h.
TO the "real owner'' whethor -; tn
th or not. But it was not tine nnlic, m
,roiI IIaIeGCe TO extend the Jurisdiction tn M,
- 1 dS ,eSal Titles in all circumstances or
ainan. o Id state of case, where the com
vn It'll iea'es IN doubt the validity of his =
sa a. Testing this case by these prtoci,,es n
is fjouhff',T lowers OF the court of equity II
- - u:ouotinl on construction of The 10y; ,
u IA view of the erection of cartai ;nG ueed 0,'
OF the class named in the deed Wilt oui'u- An
1d in tbo ao III condition subsequent As
~, ~ ~ Tue case made by the bin II = ~. Fa
- oiiaC Checomp!alnantS are not estnnn ,os
4 ~ ao"S acqulescence of their ancalto, sue
in, iaiiare to enter upon or NJ, AN
- 70 Inc land They come into en- ind
II IF tba :" an setse. Fro
a n; Cue alegatlon of fraud is intended ker
uIstihct ground of relief If Is NJ eti 1I to
al aJeo Ia not stating specific acts cho ven In
) - no q ma further to entitle omnla;nans +
lGfscission on the the theorv Of me div
IN pi the case. the ancestor Will; eiis as +
@vna9ie time after the breach of tba 1l d Tns
'cnn enould nave taken steps to rescin5 risf
sim The ~, 1'eGeTSe@ and decree here dis suit
''''s '''e "a" aotttot prejudice "' upo