Ferry Beach Park Ass'n of Univer-Salists v. City of Saco

• Decision Date: 11 May 1928
• Citation: 142 A. 65
• Parties: FERRY BEACH PARK ASS'N OF UNIVER-SALISTS v. CITY OF SACO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

142 A. 65

FERRY BEACH PARK ASS'N OF UNIVER-SALISTS

v. CITY OF SACO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 11, 1928.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, York County, at Law.

Proceeding by the Ferry Beach Park Association of Universalists against City of Saco for an abatement of tax on real estate. From a refusal of the assessors of the City of Saco to abate the tax, the taxpayer appealed. On report. Judgment for taxpayer.

Argued before WILSON, C. J., and PHILBROOK, DUNN, DEASY, STURGIS, BASSETT, and PATTANGALL, JJ.

Strout & Strout, of Portland, for appellant.

John P. Deering, City Sol., of Biddeford, for appellee.

STURGIS, J. Appeal under R. S. c. 10, §§ 77-82, from the refusal of the assessors of the city of Saco to abate the tax of $699.14 assessed for the year 1925 upon the real estate of the appellant The case is certified to this court upon report for rendition of such judgment as the legal rights of the parties require.

The Ferry Beach Park Association of Universalists was incorporated by certificate dated November 20, 1909, under chapter 62 of the Revised Statutes. The purposes of the corporation as stated in its certificate of organization, are—

"religious, educational, moral and social, viz. the generating of missionary power throughout the Universalist Church, and for the furtherance of its principal purpose, the following purposes, viz.:

"1. To carry on religious, educational and social institutes, lectures and concerts and to conduct services of a religious nature and of moral character.

"2. To erect and maintain a hotel or hotels for the conveniences of its members and guests and to engage in all business incidental to and essential to such erection and maintenance and in all business requisite for the health and welfare of its members and guests while there resident."

The history of this association since incorporation indicates that its activities have been in substantial accord with the purposes for which it was given charter. Primarily it is a missionary society, carrying on, along lines of its own election, the diffusion and inculcation of the Christian religion. The fact that it carries on social and vacational activities along with its educational and devotional meetings does not deprive it of this primary character. If the stern and rigid limitations of Puritanism are relaxed to permit the inclusion of some of the recreational pleasures of life in the gatherings of this association, none the less these are but incidental to the main purposes, promoting and renewing interest it may be, but clearly subordinate to its general aim and purpose of "developing the missionary power of the Universalist Church."

Secondary also are the business affairs of the association. Its charter authorizes the erection and maintenance of hotels for the accommodation of its members and guests, and its conduct of "all business requisite for the health and welfare of its members and guests, while there resident." These purposes are by the terms of the charter in furtherance of its principal purpose, and in practice they seem to remain so.

This association clearly falls within the class of missionary societies which this court has included "within the realm of public charities." Prime v. Harmon, 120 Me. 299, 301, 113 A. 738, 739; Straw v. East Maine Conference, 67 Me. 494; Maine Baptist Missionary Convention v. Portland, 65 Me. 92. The association, we think, is a "benevolent and charitable institution incorporated by the state," the real property of which, occupied for its own purposes, is exempt from taxation. R. S. c. 10, § 6, par. 3.

The crucial question to be here determined is, What are the purposes for which the land and buildings of the association are used and occupied? And the question must be answered by the application of the settled rules established by this court in its numerous decisions interpreting the statutory exemption under which the association claims relief.

It is a fundamental rule of the law of taxation that "taxation is the rule and exemption the exception." And all doubts and uncertainties as to the meaning of a stature are to be weighed against exemption. Out of this rule springs the doctrine that, "when the property 'of an institution is by legislative grant exempted from taxation, the exemption must be held as applying only to such property as is occupied by such institutions for their own purposes." Auburn v. Y. M. C. Association, 80 Me. 244, 29 A. 992.

In this state this doctrine has been written into the tax statute, appearing as a limitation or exception appended to the general exemption granted benevolent and charitable institutions. It reads:

"But so much of the real estate of such corporations as is not occupied by them for their own purposes, shall be taxed in the municipality in which it is situated." R. S. c. 10, § 6, par. 3.

The application of this statutory limitation is aptly illustrated in the case of Foxcroft v. Straw, 86 Me. 76, 29 A. 950, and Foxcroft v. Campmeeting Association, 86 Me. 78, 29 A. 751, cases in which the use and occupation of the property sought to be exempted from taxation were markedly similar to those of the appellant. In these cases it appears that the Piscataquis Valley Campmeeting Association owned and maintained a campground so called, consisting of ten acres of land, a part of which was used for an auditorium where religious meetings were held, a part for lots let to members for the erection of cottages, a part used for a stable and stable yard where horses were stabled for hire, and a part let for an eating house or victualing purposes. In Foxcroft v. Straw, the court, considering a tax assessed upon a lot let for cottage erection, said:

"We are of opinion that the lot was...