County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane

• Decision Date: 22 March 1881
• Parties: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN <I>vs.</I> BROTHERHOOD OF THE CHURCH OF GETHSEMANE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 460

27 Minn. 460

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN vs. BROTHERHOOD OF THE CHURCH OF GETHSEMANE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 22, 1881.

Defendant, upon application being made to the district court for Hennepin county for judgment for taxes of 1878 against lots 8 and 9, described in the opinion, and of which it was the owner, appeared and filed its answer objecting to the same. The court, Young, J., presiding, having made findings of fact and law, ordered judgment for defendant. Thereupon, on motion of plaintiff, the proceedings were certified to this court under Gen. St. 1878, c. 11, § 80.

W. E. Hale, for plaintiff.

George R. Robinson, for defendant.

BERRY, J.

The facts found by the district court are these: The defendant is, and for several years last past has been, a corporation under the laws of this state, and, as such, owner of lots 8 and 9, in block 212, in Nelson's addition to Minneapolis. Defendant is also owner of lot 10, in the same block, upon which is situated a building in which defendant has, for several years last past, maintained a hospital for the care of such as need the benefits of such an institution. This is known as the Cottage Hospital, and the public generally are entitled to enjoy its benefits, without regard to sex, race, or religious belief. Those who are cared for in the hospital, if pecuniarily able, are charged from two to six dollars per week, according to their ability. Such as are not able to pay are cared for without charge. Hennepin county is charged, for the care of such patients as are a legal county charge, six dollars per week. All income received from private and county patients is devoted to the maintenance of the hospital; and, besides, private contributions are necessary, and are bestowed, to maintain the same. Lots 8 and 9, above mentioned, which adjoin lot 10, and are in the same enclosure with it, are used as a vegetable garden, wood-yard, etc., for the use and convenience of the hospital. No part of them is leased or otherwise used with a view to profit.

Upon these facts the district court held, as matter of law, that lots 8 and 9 were exempt from taxation. We think this was right. Section 3, art. 9, of the constitution, declares that "public burying-grounds, public school-houses, public hospitals, academies, colleges, universities, and all seminaries of learning, all churches, church property used for religious purposes, and houses of worship, institutions of purely public charity, public property used exclusively for any public purpose, * * * shall, by general laws, be exempt from...