Corporation of Sisters of Mercy v. Lane County
| Decision Date | 29 November 1927 |
| Citation | 261 P. 694,123 Or. 144 |
| Parties | CORPORATION OF SISTERS OF MERCY v. LANE COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Department 2.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County; G. F. Skipworth, Judge.
Suit by the Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy against Lane County and others. From the judgment, defendant Ben F. Keeney County Assessor, appeals. Affirmed.
This suit was instituted to restrain the officers of Lane county from assessing, levying, and collecting taxes upon the plaintiff's property known as Mercy Hospital, and alleged to have been devoted to charitable uses.
The plaintiff corporation was organized by representatives of a religious society known as the Sisters of Mercy, under the name of "Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy," its purpose being, according to its articles, "entirely religious, educational, and charitable." The articles further state:
The property in question, consisting of a hospital and grounds situate in Eugene, Lane county, Or., involves two adjoining tracts; one containing 3.178 acres, acquired by the society in 1912, being designated in the record as tract No. 1; the other a tract of 2.6 acres, purchased in September, 1921, and referred to as tract No. 2. The hospital is located on tract No. 1.
The court decreed that tract No. 1 was exempt from taxation, but denied the exemption of tract No. 2. The defendant appeals from that part of the decree exempting tract No. 1 from taxation, and the plaintiff undertook to appeal from that part of the decree holding tract No. 2 to be taxable, but neglected to perfect the appeal.
H. E. Slattery, of Eugene, for appellant.
Donald Young and L. L. Ray, both of Eugene, for respondents.
J. P Kavanaugh and Hall S. Lusk, both of Portland, amici curiæ.
BROWN J. (after stating the facts as above).
Section 4235, Oregon Laws, provides:
The defendants aver that Mercy Hospital is not exempt from taxation as a charitable corporation under the provisions of the statute hereinabove set out; and, further, that, if the hospital is exempt under that statute, such statute is unconstitutional and void.
Is Mercy Hospital a charitable institution as defined by law? In this connection, the uncontradicted testimony of the president of the society that founded the hospital is enlightening. She testified, in part, as follows:
She testified that it was not the intention or purpose of the corporation to sell any part of the property, and that it was not held for speculation.
Sister Mary Lourdes, one of the organizers of the corporation, and who had been superintendent of the hospital for a number of years, testified that there were buildings on the lands constituting a graduate nurses' home, a student nurses' home, a hospital, and a pump house; that a small portion of the land was used for garden and orchard purposes for the benefit of the hospital; that the hospital was equipped with 50 to 60 beds; and that one floor of the nurses' home was likewise equipped with hospital beds that the general equipment of the hospital consisted of an X-ray laboratory, therapeutic light, and modern tables, modern sterilizers, a dishwasher, a mangle, and washer; that the hospital was not operated for profit; and that, if any surplus was accumulated, it went to pay off the indebtedness, or "is put into the building, put into the hospital, to the upkeep of the patients and taking care of patients." She testified that none of the money derived from the operation of the hospital was invested anywhere other than in the local hospital. In answer to the following questions by the court, she testified:
She testified that the nurses who were paid were not Sisters of Mercy; that the sisters who were at the hospital had no outside employment, but that they devoted all of their time to the work of the hospital; that their duties consisted of "all the duties you could possibly think of," because they supervised every department, i. e., a sister supervised the entire bookkeeping department, another the housekeeping department, and yet another the buying department; that a sister in the laboratory supervised the laboratory, another was head of the tray room, and another supervised the nurses' home. She testified that the society made no discrimination on account of the religious faith of patients, nor in regard to "race, creed, or color." She further testified:
She then testified concerning the maintenance of a training...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
...Rocke, 91 W. Va. 423, 113 S. E. 647, 650; Kelley v. Meyers, 124 Or. 322, 263 P. 903, 905, 56 A. L. R. 661; Corporation of Sisters of Mercy v. Lane County, 123 Or. 144, 261 P. 694, 700; City of Astoria v. Cornelius, 119 Or. 264, 240 P. 233, 236; Willard v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist., 201 Cal. 7......
-
Friendsview Manor v. State Tax Commission
...the charitable exemption from property tax although patients paid for the hospital services rendered. Corporation of Sisters of Mercy v. Lane County, 123 Or. 144, 155, 261 P. 694 (1927), The Manor has failed to observe that what was being paid for in our hospital decisions is completely dif......
-
Utah County, By and Through County Bd. of Equalization of Utah County v. Intermountain Health Care, Inc.
...fact that these hospitals do not advertise that they render free service is inconsequential. The court in Corporation of Sisters of Mercy v. Lane County, 123 Or. 144, 261 P. 694 (1927), did not disqualify a charitable hospital for giving a bill to each patient so as not to be imposed upon b......
-
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue
...were incorporated." Oregon Laws, title XXIX, ch II, § 4235 (1920) (emphasis added); see Corporation of Sisters of Mercy v. Lane Co., 17 123 Or. 144, 261 P 694 (1927). The court reasoned that the "adoption of a legislative policy exempting hospitals from taxation is predicated upon the theor......