First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh v. Sinclair Refining Co.

CoNNOB, J. The First Presbyterian Church of Raleigh, N. C., as successor in name to the Presbyterian Church of Raleigh, is now the *473 owner of an estate in fee simple in tbe lot or parcel of land described in tbe proposed lease executed by tbe trustees of said cbureb, and tendered by them to tbe Sinclair Refining Company, in compliance with tbe contract between said cburcb and said company, under. tbe deed executed by Jobn Devereux and bis wife, Frances Devereux, set out in full in tbe statement of facts agreed, wbicb was submitted to tbe court, in accordance with tbe provisions of 0. S., 626. Tbe land described in said deed, wbicb includes tbe lot or parcel of land described in said proposed lease, is conveyed thereby to tbe trustees of tbe Presbyterian Churcb of Raleigb, their beirs and successors. Tbe question presented for decision by tbis appeal is whether tbe said fee-simple estate is qualified or defeasible by virtue of tbe language in tbe habendum clause of said deed. Tbe court below was of opinion that said fee-simple estate is not so qualified, and is indefeasible, notwithstanding said language. In tbis opinion there was no error. Tbe opinion is sustained by authoritative decisions of this Court. Tucker v. Smith, 199 N. C., 502, 154 S. E., 826; Cook v. Sink, 190 N. C., 620, 130 S. E., 714; Shields v. Harris, 190 N. C., 520, 130 S. E., 189; Hall v. Quinn, 190 N. C., 326, 130 S. E., 18, and many cases cited in tbe opinions therein. Tbe principles of law on wbicb tbe decision in each of these cases rests are well settled. In Hall v. Quinn, supra, it is said that a clause in a deed will not be construed as a condition subsequent, wbicb qualifies tbe estate conveyed thereby, and tbe breach of wbicb will defeat said estate, unless tbe clause expresses in apt and appropriate language tbe intention of tbe parties to that effect (Braddy v. Elliott, 146 N. C., 578, 60 S. E., 507) and a mere statement of tbe purpose for wbicb tbe property is to be used is not sufficient to create such condition. Where, as in tbe instant case, there is no language showing an intent that tbe property shall revert to tbe grantor, bis beirs or assigns, or that tbe grantor, bis heirs or assigns shall have tbe right to reenter, tbe language used in tbe deed, with reference to tbe use by tbe grantee, bis beirs or assigns of tbe property conveyed thereby, will not ordinarily be construed as qualifying tbe estate granted, or as imposing a condition subsequent which may result in a defeat of tbe estate. “Conditions subsequent are not favored by tbe law, and are construed strictly because they tend to destroy estates and tbe rigid execution of them is a species of summum jus, and in many eases, hardly reconcilable with conscience.” 4 Kent’s Com. (12 ed., 129); Church v. Bragaw, 144 N. C., 126, 56 S. E., 688; Hinton v. Vinson, 180 N. C., 393, 104 S. E., 897. Even if tbe language used in the deed in tbe instant case, with reference to tbe relationship of tbe Presbyterian Cburcb of Raleigb (tbe predecessor in name of tbe First Presbyterian Cburcb of Raleigb, N. C.), to tbe Presbyterian Cbureb in tbe United States of America, and tbe Old School General Assembly of said cburcb, is construed as a condi *474 tion subsequent, by the breach of which the fee-simple estate may be defeated, in view of all the facts agreed contained in the statement submitted to the court, such breach is so improbable that for the purposes of this decision, such condition subsequent should be disregarded. It is too remote to affect the title of the church to the lot or parcel of land described in the lease. In the highly improbable event of a breach of this condition, resulting in a defeat of the estate of the church in said lot or parcel of land, the lessee is protected from loss by the covenants in the lease. It is suggested that if the lessee, the Sinclair Refining Company, is required to accept the proposed lease, it will further be required to see to the application of the rents paid by it to the church. This suggestion is not well founded. See Denson v. Creamery Co., 191 N. C., 198, 131 S. E., 581. There is no error in the judgment. It is Affirmed.