noting, where property had been held in reserve for two years for possible future use as a school, that “the evidence shows no definite intention or contemplation[] to use the land for any purpose connected with maintaining a public school”
How later courts described this case
- noting, where property had been held in reserve for two years for possible future use as a school, that “the evidence shows no definite intention or contemplation[] to use the land for any purpose connected with maintaining a public school”
- concluding that holding property in idle reserve and using it to store classroom seats did not comport with school purposes
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WELCH, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent to this reversal of the trial court’s judgment in favor of school district.
I would affirm the trial court on the theory that there was not sufficient showing of such an abandonment or nonuser, or such incompatible or inconsistent use, by school district, as to forfeit this property and cause same to revert back from the district to private ownership.