Hawes v. Lathrop

¡Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court: The plaintiff conveyed to the defendants, as trustees, a tract of land with a building thereon, for the purpose of establishing and maintaining a school. The defendants made an addition to the building and caused the whole to be insured for two thousand dollars. The building was destroyed by fire and the loss was paid to the trustees. There was a provision in the trust deed, to the effect that if the design to establish and maintain a school should prove unsuccessful, the trustees, by resolution, should so declare, [497]and thereupon the title to the property should revert to the plaintiff. After the fife the trustees did so declare, and also re-conveyed the premises to the plaintiff. The question presented is, whether the money paid to the defendants (the trustees) became, in equity, the property of the plaintiff upon the re-conveyance of the premises by the trustees.

The addition to the house, which was erected by the trustees, was not personal property, but it became, like the house, to which it was attached, a part of the realty. The strictness of the earlier rule, requiring the structure to be attached to the soil, in order to become a fixture, is being relaxed in this country, in consequence of the manner in which very many buildings, that are intended to be permanent, are erected. But the addition was, in this case, attached to the main building in such a manner that it constituted a part of the main building. The trustees, therefore, held the “addition” by the same tenure that they held the lot and the main building; and had the property reverted to the plaintiff before the fire, the “addition” would have passed to him with the lot, without any special words of conveyance. The insurance of the building covered the “addition” as well as the main building, and, if the plain-, tiff is entitled to any part of the fund paid by the insurer on account of the loss, he is entitled to the whole.

The trustees held the fund in their fiduciary, and not in their private capacity. The persons to whom they paid the larger part of the money had made donations to the trustees for the benefit of the school, but without any conditions, and they had neither a legal nor equitable claim to the fund. Nor did any claim exist in favor of the persons to whom portions of the fund were paid on account of a loss of furniture sustained by one, or a personal injury sustained by the other. Upon the passage of the resolution referred to, the title to the real estate reverted to the plaintiff, and the trustees had no further duties to perform in maintaining the school; and, clearly, it would be unnecessary, and not within the scope of their duties, to expend any further sum of money for that purpose. The duties of the defendants, as