Hospital v. Philadelphia County

• Decision Date: 01 March 1855
• Citation: 24 Pa. 229
• Parties: Hospital versus Philadelphia County.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

24 Pa. 229

Hospital versus Philadelphia County.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

IN this case the rector, churchwardens, &c., in trust for Christ Church Hospital, were plaintiffs, and the county of Philadelphia was defendant, and a case was agreed upon to the following purport: —

Watts, for plaintiff in error.—It was submitted whether the Act of 6th April, 1833, was not in the nature of a contract; and alleged that the preamble to the Act sets forth the consideration of the grant; that the Act of itself imports a sufficient consideration; and if a contract, it could not, constitutionally, be repealed: 6 Cranch 136, Fletcher v. Peck; 7 Id. 164, New Jersey v. Wilson; 2 Watts 104; 5 Barr 160; 2 Penn. Rep. 196; 6 Conn. 223; 7 Id. 335.

Badger, for the county.—If a party, with full knowledge of the facts, pays a demand attempted to be enforced by legal proceedings, even under protest, unless there is fraud, it cannot be recovered back: 7 Cushing 125.

It was further contended that the Act of 1833 was not to be regarded as a contract, and that the Act of 1851 was constitutional: 8 Peters 110, Nathan v. Spencer.

Meredith, in reply.—The case is not one of a merely irregular assessment. The hospital property was in actual use by the corporation, and not liable to taxation. The performance of its functions by the corporation was the consideration of the grant, and the Act of 1833 was not liable to be repealed. It was further contended that the Act of 1851 was not designed to operate upon the Act of 1833 in question, but upon a general Act passed upon 16th April, 1828, exempting churches, &c., from taxation.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by LEWIS, C. J.

An unjust assessment of taxes is in general to be remedied by an appeal to the county commissioners. In Philadelphia, Schuylkill, and perhaps some other counties, there is a further appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. But that Court, by the terms of the statute, is limited in its authority over the matter and must either affirm or reduce the assessment. It cannot avoid it altogether. The Act of 1836, giving this appeal, does not seem intended for cases of persons or property not liable to assessment at all. In Massachusetts it has been held, that where personal property, not within the jurisdiction, but otherwise liable to taxation, is assessed at the place of the owner's domicil, it is a case of overrating merely, and is to be remedied by an appeal. Osborn v. Davis, 6 Pick. 100. But where a non-resident, who is not subject to the jurisdiction, is assessed for a personal tax, he may, even after payment under protest, recover back the taxes collected: Preston v. Boston, 12 Pick. 11, 13. So, in this state, in a case where a corporation is not to be regarded as "a person" within the meaning of an Act for assessment of taxes, the tax, after payment under protest, may be recovered back: 8 Watts 294. The same rule ought to apply to the case of an assessment on property not liable to assessment. In the one case there is no jurisdiction over the party, and in the other none over the property. The principle is the same in both cases; and it has been constantly applied in the investigation of land titles under sales for non-payment of taxes. In all cases where seated property has been assessed and sold as unseated, the titles derived under such proceedings have been declared invalid. This is the principle of the decision in the Borough of Allentown v. Saeger, 8 Harris 421. In that case the ground of the action was that the property was not subject to...