Draft:Wright v. Morgan

Wright v. Morgan, 191 U.S. 55 (1903) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court held that federal lands conveyed to the city for use as a city cemetery could legally be conveyed by the city to the Catholic Church for the same usage by the church.

The case originated as Morgan v. Rogers, in which case the city of Denver, by Act of May 21, 1872, c. 187, 17 Stat. 140, was authorized to purchase certain lands in Colorado for cemetery purposes, to be entered by the mayor of said city at the minimum price. The act was entitled, "An act to enable the city of Denver to purchase certain lands in Colorado for cemetery purposes," and provided:

"That the mayor of the city of Denver, in Colorado Territory, be, and he is hereby authorized to enter through the proper land office, at the minimum price per acre, the following lands belonging to the United States [describing them], being 160 acres of land, lying adjacent to said city of Denver, to be held and used for a burial place for said city and vicinity."

The lands were entered and paid for, and on November 15, 1873, patent was duly issued, conveying to Joseph E. Bates, mayor of the city of Denver, and to his successors and assigns forever, the lands described, including the lands aforesaid, in trust for the city of Denver. The patent contained no reference to the use to which the land was to be put. On January 25, 1890 (26 Stat. 2, c. 3), Congress passed an act which referred to the previous act of May 21, 1872, and confirmed the patent theretofore issued, and further provided:

"That the * * * city of Denver be, and it is hereby, authorized to vacate the use of said land, or any part thereof, as a cemetery, and to appropriate and use the same * * * for a public park or grounds," and to no other purpose."

The lands involved therein had been conveyed to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Denver, and on April 25, 1887, a portion thereof had been conveyed to the defendant Morgan, who had entered thereon and platted same as an addition to the city of Denver. Ejectment was brought by the mayor of the city against the defendant, and on demurrer to the petition the trial court overruled the demurrer and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and upon error to the Circuit Courts of Appeals, this judgment was reversed, and in the opinion the court said:

"(1) The act of Congress of May 21, 1872, to enable the city of Denver to purchase certain land in Colorado for cemetery purposes, and authorizing the mayor of the city of Denver to enter the designated 160 acres at the land office at the minimum price, to be held and used as a burial place by said city and vicinity, did not operate to annex any condition to the grant so authorized. Conditions subsequent are not favored, and the terms used must clearly show that it was intended that the grant should be on condition, or they will not be construed to have that effect. In this case, although the use to which it was expected the land would be put is mentioned, it is rather as an explanation of the reason for permitting such an unusual entry of the land by a municipal corporation than for any other purpose. There are no words restricting the use to that mentioned, nor providing for forfeiture in case the land is put to other use. (2) The patent by which the title to this land was conveyed conveys the land absolutely, in fee, and without any mention of any use whatever."

This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in Wright v. Morgan, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was affirmed. In the opinion it is said:

"The act of Congress approved May 21, 1872 (17 Stat. 40, c. 18) was entitled 'An act to enable the city of Denver to purchase certain lands in Colorado for a cemetery,' and it authorized the mayor of the city to enter, at the minimum price, certain lands, including the land in question, 'to be held and used for a burial place for said city and vicinity.' The price was paid and a patent was issued purporting to convey to the 'mayor in trust for said city and to his successors' the said land, not referring to the above act otherwise than by the words in 'conformity with the several acts of Congress in such cases made and provided.' This patent was confirmed by an act of Congress approved January 25, 1890 (26 Stat. L. 2, c. 3), and the city of Denver was authorized to 'vacate the use of the said land, or any portion thereof, as a cemetery, and to appropriate and use the same or any part thereof for a public park or grounds'."

After reviewing the facts, the opinion continues:

"If the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition, even when the word 'condition' is used, it needs no argument to show that there was no condition or limitation here. Little more needs to be said to show that the act of Congress did not make the land inalienable at common law. We need not consider whether the act could have that effect upon land within the state, when the conveyance was absolute and was made to a citizen or instrumentality of the state. We express no opinion upon the point. It is enough that it did not purport so to restrict the ordinary incidents of title. We should require the clearest expression of such an unusual restriction before we should admit that it was imposed, especially in an ordinary sale for cash. Here the act probably meant no more than to explain the motive for a sale at the minimum price. The ratified patent said nothing of any restriction, or even any trust, beyond the one executed in the statute."

"It is generally held that the mere recital in a deed, or other instrument, that the land is conveyed for cemetery purposes, does not operate as a condition subsequent for a breach of which, by use of the land for other purposes, the grantors or his heirs would be entitled to re-enter. Thus, in Wright v. Morgan, it appeared that Congress passed an act authorizing the mayor of the city of Denver, Colorado, to enter at a minimum price, certain lands, "to be held and used for a burial place for such city and vicinity." The patent was confirmed by act of Congress. Subsequently the city conveyed the land to an officer of the Roman Catholic Church of Denver, and his successors in office, and it was held that the city acquired under the patent an absolute, alienable title. The court stated: "If the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition, even when the word 'condition' is used, it needs no argument to show that there was no condition or limitation here. Little more needs to be said to show that the act of Congress did not make the land inalienable at common law. We need not consider whether the act would have that effect upon land within a state, when the conveyance was absolute, and was made to a citizen or instrumentality of the state; we express no opinion upon the point. It is enough that it did not purport so to restrict the ordinary incidents of title. We should require the clearest expression of such an unusual restriction before we should admit that it was imposed, especially in an ordinary sale for cash. Here, the act probably meant no more than to explain the motive for a sale at a minimum price.""

Decennial Digest
https://books.google.com/books?id=yGkvAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1081 (1910)

§ 225 (5). Requisites and validity of conveyance or disposition.

[a] (U.S. Sup., Colo., 1903)

The informality in a sale of real property by a municipality, arising from the execution of the deed by the mayor rather than by a special commissioner, will not sustain ejectShannon's Code, § 1915, subsec. 8, confer- ment by the municipality to recover back the ring power on the board of mayor and alder- land after the purchase price has been receivmen of municipal corporations to sell and dis-ed by the city, and the land occupied by the pose of streets and alleys if deemed expedient, purchaser for nearly 20 years. Judgment, Morrelates only to such streets and alleys as the gan v. Johnson (1901) 106 F. 452, 45 C. C. A. corporation owns as so much realty, and not 421, affirmed.-Wright v. Morgan, 24 S. Ct. to those in which it has a mere easement.-State 6, 191 U. S. 55, 48 L. Ed. 89. v. Taylor, 64 S. W. 766, 107 Tenn. 455. [n] (Utah, 1898)

The provision of the charter of Ogden City, authorizing it to lease, convey, and dispose of property, real and personal, for its benefit, did not authorize it to lease or otherwise transfer its waterworks system, or its water right used in supplying its inhabitants with water. A special provision is required to authorize the transfer of property so used.-City of Ogden City v. Bear Lake & River Waterworks & Irrigation Co., 52 P. 697, 16 Utah, 440, 41 L. R. A. 305.

[b] (U.S. Sup., Colo., 1903)

A deed from a municipality to a person incorrectly described as the bishop of Colorado, habendum to him, his heirs, and assigns, is within the authority conferred by a resolution of the common council, granting the petition of the grantee, who was the Roman Catholic bishop of Denver, for a conveyance to him and his successors in office. Judgment, Morgan v. Johnson (1901) 106 F. 452, 45 C. C. A. 421, affirmed.-Wright v. Morgan, 24 S. Ct. 6, 191 U. S. 55, 48 L. Ed. 89.

[c] (U.S. Sup., Colo., 1903)

The petition having stated the right in

§ 225 (4). Authority and powers of commit- which the property was claimed by petitioner, tee or officers.

[a] (U.S. Sup.. Colo., 1903)

and the purpose for which the title was desired, it was not essential that the deed should declare the trust upon which it was conveyed, but the designation of the grantee by his name and official title, and a recital that the deed was made by order of the city council, and "for the purposes aforesaid," was a sufficient reference to the petition and proceedings of the council to disclose such trust; nor was the deed invalidated because the habendum clause ran to the grantee, "his heirs and assigns," instead of to his "successors in office," nor because his ecclesiastical title was incorrectly stated.-(1901) Morgan v. Johnson, 106 F. 452, 45 C. C. A. 421, affirmed Wright v. Morgan (1903) 24 S. Ct. 6, 191 U. S. 55, 48 L. Ed. 89.

The city of Denver acquired from the United States the title to certain land, a portion of which had previously been purchased from a claimant by the bishop of the Catholic Church, and devoted to cemetery purposes. The bishop presented a petition to the city counci!, setting out such facts, and praying that the council would cause a good deed to be made on behalf of the city conveying the property to him, "as Catholic bishop aforesaid, and to his successors in office, forever." The petition was referred to a committee, which reported in favor of granting the prayer thereof, and on motion the report of the committee was adopted by a vote of the council. The council had power, under Where the power to dispose of property the statutes of the state, to dispose of the prop- owned by a city is vested by statute in the erty. Held, that its action constituted sufficient city council, the manner of its exercise not beauthority to support a deed executed on behalf ing prescribed, the adoption of a motion auof the city conveying the property to the peti- thorizing and directing the conveyance of proptioner in consideration of the payment to the erty is as efficacious as the passage of an ordicity of the amount it had expended in acquir-nance.-(1901) Morgan v. Johnson, 106 F. 452, ing the title.-(1901) Morgan v. Johnson, 106 F. 452, 45 C. C. A. 421, affirmed (1903) Wright v. Morgan (1903) 24 S. Ct. 6, 191 U. S. 55, 48 L. Ed. 89.

[b] (Ill. App. 1899) Under Rev. St. c. 24, § 14, making the mayor the chief executive officer of the city, he is the proper officer to execute a lease, having the corporate seal of the city properly affixed by the city clerk.-City of Chicago v. English, 80 Ill. App. 163.

[d] (U.S. Sup., Colo., 1903)

45 C. C. A. 421, aflirmed Wright v. Morgan (1903) 24 S. Ct. 6, 191 U. S. 55, 48 L. Ed. 89. [e] (U.S. Sup., Colo., 1903)

Where a city has undertaken to convey property to one who had a prior equitable claim thereto, receiving the consideration demanded, and has for many years acquiesced in the ownership and possession of the grantee, the conveyance will be sustained by the courts, unless clearly illegal.-(1901) Morgan v. Johnson, 106 F. 452, 45 C. C. A. 421, affirmed Wright v. Morgan (1903) 24 S. Ct. 6, 191 U. S. 55, 48

L. Ed. 89.

[f] (U.S. C.C.A., Colo., 1902)