Boston Soc. of Redemptorist Fathers v. City of Boston
| Decision Date | 08 July 1880 |
| Citation | 129 Mass. 178 |
| Parties | Boston Society of Redemptorist Fathers v. City of Boston |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Suffolk. Contract to recover the amount of a tax assessed on May 1 1876, by the defendant city, upon a lot of land owned by the plaintiff corporation on the west side of Bumstead Lane in Boston, and paid by the plaintiff under protest. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the plaintiff, to this court on appeal, upon the following agreed facts:
The plaintiff was organized in 1871, under the Gen. Sts. c. 32 and was authorized by the St. of 1875, c. 92, to hold real and personal estate, for the purpose of its organization, to the amount of $ 100,000, in addition to the amount allowed by the General Statutes. The articles of association stated the purpose of the corporation to be "to promote Christian principles, and to reclaim the destitute, ignorant and vicious classes of the community from the evils under which they labor;" and provided that "no person shall be eligible to be elected a member of said corporation, unless he be a member of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer."
In April 1871, after its articles of association were recorded the plaintiff purchased, for the purposes for which it was organized, a large parcel of land on Tremont Street in Boston, which was divided into two lots of unequal size by a private way called Bumstead Lane, the fee in the soil of which way was owned by the plaintiff, and over which the owners of certain other estates had a right of passage.
At the time of the conveyance there was a house on the lot east of Bumstead Lane, which house was at once occupied by the plaintiff for the purposes set forth in its articles of association. This house was afterwards enlarged, and new buildings, consisting of a clergy-house, school and church were erected. No tax has been assessed on this lot, it being conceded that it was exempt from taxation under the General Statutes.
The lot on the west side of Bumstead Lane was not, at the time of the purchase, occupied by any building, and has remained vacant to the present time. The plaintiff intended to place one of its new structures on this lot, and surveys and plans were made, but it was discovered that the cost of obtaining a secure foundation for a large building would be much greater upon this lot than on the easterly lot, and the location of the buildings was accordingly changed. The plaintiff intends to construct one or more light buildings of wood on the westerly lot for school purposes. The land of this lot is loamy, and suited to cultivation, while that of the easterly lot is chiefly a solid ledge of rock; but such parts of each as are suited for cultivation are cultivated, and are and have been occupied by grass, vegetables and fruit-trees. The vegetable products are small, and are consumed by the officers and servants of the plaintiff, or given away in charity.
The plaintiff has leased no part of the premises, and has derived no profit from them; and no part of the premises has been occupied by other than the plaintiff's officers and servants. The entire parcel of real estate on the east and west sides adjoins lands with numerous buildings thereon, some of them tenement houses, densely populated, and the plaintiff contends that the lands are of value to the plaintiff for light and air, and to prevent the too near proximity of causes of sickness.
The chief business of the members of the congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer is preaching and religious exhortation and teaching. The entire front of the east parcel on Tremont Street is occupied by the buildings of the corporation, whose officers contend that both the east and west parcels are necessary to the purposes set forth in their articles of association, which claim the defendant denies.
If the court should find for the plaintiff, judgment was to be entered for $ 355.60, with interest from December 21, 1876; other wise, for the defendant.
Judgment for the defendant.
J. A. Maxwell, for the plaintiff.
T. M. Babson, for the defendant.
It is according to the policy of our law that all the property of the inhabitants of the Commonwealth should contribute in fair and just proportion to the public burdens. The government assumes the protection of all property within its limits whether owned by natural persons or corporate bodies, and it has a right to claim that such property is held subject to the reciprocal obligation of meeting,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worcester County Nat. Bank v. Comm'r of Corporations
...to the general rule is on the petitioner. State Street Trust Co. v. Treasurer & Receiver General, supra. See Boston Society of Redemptorist Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178, 180. The transaction was ‘a bona fide purchase.’ It remains, however, to determine whether there was ‘full considerat......
-
Boston Symphony Orchestra, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of City of Boston
... ... that he comes within the terms of the exemption. Boston ... Society of Redemptorist Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass ... 178, 180; [1 N.E.2d 11] Boston Lodge, Order of Elks v ... ...
-
South Iowa Methodist Homes, Inc. v. Board of Review of Cass County
...of school buildings at some future time, but which at the time of assessment was used as a garden. Boston Soc. of Redemptorist Fathers v. City of Boston, 129 Mass. 178. The facts here are more consistent with the Massachusetts case in which exemption was New Jersey and Pennsylvania statutes......
-
Mount Auburn Hosp. v. Assessors of Watertown
...the remaining fifty percent. Whether we turn to the cases regarding the occupancy exemption, see, e.g., Boston Soc. of Redemptorist Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178, 181-182 (1880), or the rule of proportionate exemption, see Lynn Hosp. v. Assessors of 383 Mass. at 18, 417 N.E.2d 14, no mor......