
    *Festus McVey et al. v. The Ohio University.
    Under the act of 1804, establishing the Ohio University, and the act of 1805, amendatory thereto, the lands of the university, on lease, are subject to revaluation.
    This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Athens.
    It comes before the court upon a demurrer to the bill.
    The facts, as set forth in the bill, are as follows: The United States, in 1792, in granting to the Ohio Company the lands by them purchased, reserved within the territory granted two townships of land, for the purpose of endowing a university; and, subsequently, by resolution of Congress, the legislature of Ohio were intrusted with the management and application of this fund.
    On February 18, 1804, the legislature of Ohio passed an act incorporating the Ohio University, in the town of Athens, nowin the county of Athens, and which is within one of the reserved townships. By this act the two reserved townships were vested in the corporation, in trust, for the sole use, benefit, and support of said university forever. In section 12 of the act the trustees are' directed, by the oaths of three judicious and disinterested freeholders, to lay off the land in said township, or such part thereof as they may deem expedient, into tracts of not less than 80 nor more than 240 acres, and to estimate and value the same as in their original and unimproved state. They are further authorized to lease the said land for the term of ninety years, renewable forever, on the yearly rent of six per centum on the amount of the valuation so made by the freeholders. The statute then goes on to provide that “the land so leased shall be subject to a revaluation at the expiration of thirty-five years, and to another rovaluation at the end of sixty years from the commencement of the term of each lease, which revaluation shall be made and conducted on the principle of the first; and the lessee shall pay a quarterly rent of six *per centum per annum on the amount of the revaluation so to be made ; provided, always, that the said corporation shall have power to demand a further yearly rent on said lands and tenements, not exceeding the amount of the tax imposed on property of like description by the state.”
    On February 21, 1805, an act was passed by the legislature, amendatory of the act of 1804, by which among other things, it is provided that James Denney, Emanuel Carponter, Jr., Isaac Dawson, Pelatiah White, and Ezekiel Deming shall appraise said college lands, at the then real value in an uncultivated state, and make report thereof to the board of trustees of said university; and the trustees are authorized to lease the same to any person, agreeable to law, for the term of ninety-nine years, renewable forever, with a fixed annual rent of six per centum on the appraised valuation, provided that no lands shall be leased at a loss valuation than at the rate of one dollar and seventy-five cents por acre. And it is further enacted, that so much of the act of 1804 as is contrary to this act, be and the same is hereby repealed. On November 24, 1804, the trustees (the land having been first appraised), leased to one Robert Ross, 240 78-100 acres of this land for ninety-nine years, renewable forever, he paying the annual rent of $25.57. In this lease no provision is made for a reappraisal, but the acts of 1804 and 1805 are referred to as conferring power on the trustees to make it. By sundry' assignments and conveyances, the property covered by the lease is now vested in the complainants, and they are chargeablo with the rents. It is charged in the bill, that at the time of the passage of the amendatory act, at the time of tho execution of the lease, and up to the time, or nearly so, of the filing of the bill, it was the understanding of the lessors and lessees, and all concerned, that the provisions of the law of 1804 were repealed by the law of 1805, and that there was to bo no revaluation of the leased promises. ,
    The bill then charges, that at the last session of the board of j trustees (contrary to all that had been before by them held), the trustees declared and resolved, and still pretend and claim, *that said promises, and all the lands in said township, except in the town of Athens, are subject to revaluation, and the demand of additional rent, agreeably to the provisions of the act of 1804, and that the corporation threaten to revalue said lands, and demand and assess a rent of six per centum upon said revaluation, and also a further rent, in addition thereto, equal to the state taxes on said land; and that in case of non-payment, they threaten to reenter, avoid the lease, and repossess themselves of said land.
    The prayer of the bill is, that the corporation may be enjoined, and the complainants may be quieted in their possession, and for general relief.
    Welch, for the complainants.
    Ewing, Stanbery & Hunter, for the defendants.
   Hitchcock, J.

The question which is presented to the court for consideration, in this case, is within a very narrow compass. It depends entirely upon the construction of the act of February, 1804, “establishing a university in the town of Athens.” Swan’s L. L. 226; 2 Ohio L. 193, and the act amendatory thereto, passed February 21, 1805, Swan’s L. L. 232.

Other questions are argued by complainant’s counsel, but they do not properly arise in the case. Whether any provision was made in the lease for a revaluation is a matter of no consequence. The lessors refer, in the lease, to the law under which they act, as the authority conferring upon them the power to make the lease, and it was incumbent upon the lessee to know the extent of this authority. Unless the lease was in conformity with the law, it was one which the trustees had not power to make, and the complainants’ title would fail. The complainants can not avail themselves of the allegation of having purchased without notice, for they are bound to be acquainted with the title under which they claim.

*By the act incorporating the Ohio University, the trustees are required to have the lands, with which they were intrusted for the benefit of the institution, appraised by three freeholders; and they are authorized to lease these lands, reserving a rent of six per centum per annum.

This act further provides that the lands shall be subject to revaluation at the end of thirty-five, sixty, and ninety years, and that the lessee shall pay a yearly rent of six per centum per annum upon the revaluation so made. And, further, that the corporation shall have power to demand a further yearly rent, not exceeding the amount of the tax imposed by the state on property of the like description. The same act declares that the lands themselves shall bo free from taxation by the state.

The amendatory act of 1805 empowers certain individuals therein named to appraise the lands, and authorizes the corporation to lease them (or ninety-nine years, renewable forever, reserving a fixed rent of six per centum per annum; prohibiting, however, the leasing of any land which shall not have been appraised as high as $1.75 per acre ; and it repeals so much of the former law as is contrary to this.

If, then, we can ascertain wherein the two acts differ, or wherein the latter is contrary to the former, we ascertain to what extent the former is repealed.

By the act of 1804, the lands were to be appraised by three freeholders ; by that of 1805, by five individuals named in the law. In this particular there is a difference.

By the former law the land was to be leased for ninety years, renewable forever; by the latter, for ninety-nine years, renewable forever. Here is another difference.

By the former law, the trustees were authorized to lease all the lands; by the latter, only such as should bo appraised as high as $1.75 per aero; and here is another difference.

The two laws are contrary, the one to the other, in the mode of appraisal, in the duration of the lease, and in the quantity of land to be leased. To this extent the former was repealed. *Wo have sought in vain for any other matter in which they conflict. It may have been the intention to have repealed all that part of the former law which related to the valuation and leasing of the land. But such intention can not be gathered by any known rule of construction, and, of course, we are not authorized to declare that such effect is produced.

The demurrer will be sustained, and the bill dismissed, at the costs of the complainants. Bill dismissed.  