It is well settled that corporations, though limited in their duration, may purchase and hold a fee, and they may sell such real estate whenever they shall find it no longer necessary or convenient. 5 Denio, 389; 2 Preston on Estates, 50. Kent says: " Corporations have a fee simple for the purpose of alienation, but they have only a determinable fee, for the purpose of enjoyment. On the dissolution of the corporation, the reverter is to the original grantor or his heirs; but the grantor will be excluded by the alienation in fee, and in that way the corporation may defeat the possibility of a reverter. 2 Kent, 282; 5 Denio, 389; 1 Comst. R. 509.1 Large sums of money are accordingly expended by railroad companies in erecting extensive station-houses and depots, and by banking corporations in erecting banking-houses, because, holding the land in fee, they may be able to reimburse themselves for the outlay by selling the fee before the termination of their corporate existence.

The Hudson and Delaware Railroad Company, then, by their grant from Dederer, took a title in fee, but it was a fee upon condition, there being in the grant an express condition that the road should be constructed by that company within the time prescribed by the act of incorporation. This was not a condition precedent, as was argued by the plaintiff's counsel, but a condition subsequent. The fee vested at once, subject to being divested on a failure to perform the condition. This is apparent from the language employed in the grant and from the character of the transaction. There are no technical words by which to distinguish between conditions precedent and subsequent. Whether a condition be one or the other is matter of construction, and depends upon the intention of the party creating the estate. 4 Kent, 124; 1 Term R. 645; 2 Bos. & Pull. 295; 3 Peters' U. S. R. 346. In the latter case, Marshall, Ch. J., said: " If the act (on which the estate depends) does not necessarily precede the vesting of the estate, but may accompany or follow it if this is to be collected from the whole instrument, the condition is subsequent." In this case it was evidently the design of the parties that the estate should vest at once, so that the grantee might proceed immediately with the construction of the road; otherwise a condition that it should be completed within a given time, or ever completed, would be impossible. From the character of the condition, it could not be a condition precedent. Possession and control of the land must necessarily accompany the construction and precede the completion of the road. The grant is not made to take effect on the happening of a certain event, but in presenti, and liable to be divested by the grantee's failure to perform the condition. See also, 5 Ham. Ohio Rep. 389; 9 East R. 170; 5 Pick. R. 528; 18 Martin's Louis. R. 221; Co. Litt. 246b. Kent says (4 Kent, 129): " Conditions subsequent are not favored in the law and are construed strictly, because they tend to destroy estates." They can only be reserved for the benefit of the grantor and his heirs, and no others can take advantage of a breach of them. 4 Kent Com. 122, 127; 2 Black. Com. 154. The plaintiff took his deed of the farm on the first of April, 1844. This was one year before the expiration of the time for constructing the road, and two years before the Hudson and Delaware Railroad Company conveyed to the defendants. At that time, therefore, there had been no breach of the condition; on the contrary, the right of the company was expressly recognized and reserved in the deed. Certainly, then, Dederer, when he conveyed, had no assignable interest.

1 It is now settled in New York that there is no reverter if the corporation be one having stock and stockholders. Heath v. Barmore, 50 N. Y. 302. - Ed.

A mere failure to perform a condition subsequent does not divest the estate. The grantor or his heirs may not choose to take advantage of the breach, and until they do so, by entry, or by what is now made by statute its equivalent, there is no forfeiture of the estate. This was the common law, and it has not been altered by statute so as to give a right of entry to an assignee in any instance not coupled with a reversionary interest, as in the cases of estates for years and for life, except in cases of leases, or rather of grants in fee, reserving rent. To that extent the law was changed in England by 32 Henry VIII., ch. 34; and similar enactments have been made in several of the States. In this State, these provisions will be found at 1 R. S. 748, §§ 23, 24 and 25, and are limited to grants or leases in fee reserving rents, and to leases for lives and for years.1 As to other grants upon condition, the common law is unchanged. 2 Kent, 123.

1 See § 193 N. Y. R. P. L. - Ed.

There was a reason for the statutory change in the particular cases mentioned; for in them the grantor had an interest independent of the possibility of reverter. In the cases of a grant or lease in fee, though the grantor has no reversion, he has an interest by way of annual rents reserved, and in the cases of leases for lives and years, he has an actual reversion of what remains after the expiration of the particular estates. In these cases, therefore, he has a vested interest, and may well be permitted to assign with it, and his assignee to take with such interest, his right of entry for non-performance of a condition subsequent; for the right to enforce a forfeiture is necessary to the collection of the rents and to the protection and enjoyment of the reversion. But where a fee simple, without a reservation of rents, is granted upon a condition subsequent, as in this case, there is no estate remaining in the grantor. There is simply a possibility of reverter, but that is no estate. There is not even a possibility coupled with an interest, but a bare possibility alone. It has been said such possibilities were assignable in equity; but those were interests of a very different character, as I will presently show. So far from including these, Kent says (4 Kent, Com. 130): "A court of equity will never lend its aid to divest an estate for the breach of a condition subsequent," and the chancellor acted upon that rule in Livingston v. Stickles, 8 Paige, 398.