Corcoran v. City of Boston

Decision Date31 March 1904
Citation70 N.E. 197,185 Mass. 325
PartiesCORCORAN v. CITY OF BOSTON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
COUNSEL

Chas E. Hellier, for petitioner.

Samuel M. Child, for respondent.

OPINION

MORTON, J.

This is a petition, under Rev. Laws, c. 12, § 78, for the abatement of a tax assessed to the petitioner as of May 1, 1902, by the assessors of Boston, for a parcel of land in South Boston for which the petitioner had a bond for a deed from the commonwealth, and on which prior to May 1, 1902, he had erected buildings, and was carrying on business as a box manufacturer. The petitioner paid the tax under protest. The case was heard by the court upon agreed facts with power to draw inferences; it being agreed that, if the petitioner was not liable to be taxed for the land, judgment should be entered for him for the amount of the tax, with interest. The court found and ordered judgment for the petitioner, and the case is here on exceptions by the respondent to the refusal of the court to give certain rulings that were requested, and to the rulings and findings that were made.

We think that the rulings and the refusals to rule were right. The statute expressly provides that 'the property of the commonwealth, except real estate of which the commonwealth is in possession under a mortgage for condition broken,' shall be exempt from taxation. Rev. Laws, c. 12, § 5, subd 2. The language could not be plainer. The words 'the property of the commonwealth' mean the same as 'all the property of the commonwealth.' And the fact that only one exception is made shows that no other exception could have been intended, and that a construction such as contended for by the respondent, namely, that the exception extends only to property held by the commonwealth for governmental purposes, would be unwarranted. The property that was taxed is the property of the commonwealth, notwithstanding the commonwealth has contracted to sell it to the petitioner, and the petitioner is in possession, and the exemption attaches to it so long as it continues to be the property of the commonwealth. The question now presented does not appear to have been passed upon in this state, but the plain implication of the language of the court in Inhabitants of Essex Co. v. Salem, 153 Mass. 141, 26 N.E. 431, is that if there had been an exemption from taxation in the case of counties, like that in the case of the property of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Olds, County Treasurer v. Little Horse Creek Cattle Company
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • May 15, 1914
    ...exemption of State property from taxation prevents a tax having that effect. (State v. Stevenson, (Ida.) 55 P. 886; Corcoran v. Boston, (Mass.) 70 N.E. 197; Witt v. Armstrong, 6 S.W. 225; Hardy Hartmen, 4 So. 545; Henderson v. State, 53 Ind. 60; Willey v. Koons, 49 Ind. 272). It is well set......
  • Brooks v. Town of West Springfield
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1906
    ... ... be invalid because not separately assessed. It was pointed ... out in Worcester v. Boston, 179 Mass. 41, 49, 60 ... N.E. 410, which construed the original act in connection with ... Pub ... forms there is no just cause of complaint. Olds v. City ... Trust Co., 185 Mass. 500, 506, 70 N.E. 1022, 102 Am. St ... Rep. 356 ... General, 46 Mich. 224, 9 N.W. 258; Redemptorist ... Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178; Corcoran v ... Boston, 185 Mass. 325, 326, 70 N.E. 197; Henderson ... Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 ... ...
  • AMB Fund III v. Bd. of Assessors of Bos.
    • United States
    • Appeals Court of Massachusetts
    • November 27, 2012
    ...the assessors abated the omitted assessment in full. 2. The Legislature enacted St.1904, c. 385 “[t]o change the effect of [Corcoran v. Boston, 185 Mass. 325 (1904) ], and make certain that such parcels of the flats at South Boston as should be leased for business purposes would be taxable ......
  • Cotting v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1910
    ... ... 'warranty deed or deeds' of a part of the ... commonwealth flats in South Boston. On January 17, 1899, a ... supplemental agreement was executed by the members of the ... board, ... done at an early date, either by the city of Boston, by the ... commonwealth, or otherwise, without expense to the ... purchasers.' The ... v. Coffin, 118 Mass. 156; Boston Molasses Co. v ... Com., 193 Mass. 387, 79 N.E. 827; Corcoran v ... Boston, 185 Mass. 325, 70 N.E. 197. See, also, as to the ... general principle, Peters v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT