Inst. of Holy Angels v. Borough of Ft. Lee
| Decision Date | 10 November 1910 |
| Citation | 80 N.J.L. 545,77 A. 1035 |
| Parties | INSTITUTE OF HOLY ANGELS v. BOROUGH OF FT. LEE. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)+++++
Certiorari by the Institute of Holy Angels against the Borough of Ft. Lee to review a tax assessment. Tax affirmed.
Argued June term, 1910, before GARRISON, SWAYZE, and VOORHEES, JJ.
Vredenburgh, Wall & Carey, for prosecutor.
Cornelius Doremus, for defendant.
The tax involved in this case is upon one of the lots which we have heretofore held to be taxable. Institute of Holy Angels v. Bender, 74 Atl. 251. The prosecutors claim that the land is exempt because since that decision a building has been erected thereon. This building was in course of construction during the year in which the tax was imposed, and was not yet in use at the time the evidence was taken under this writ during the present year. The language of the statute exempts all buildings actually and exclusively used for colleges, schools, academies, and seminaries not conducted for profit and the land whereon the same are situated necessary to the fair use and enjoyment thereof, not exceeding five acres in extent fir each.
It is not necessary in this case to appeal to the canon of strict construction of an exemption from taxation which has been recently reaffirmed in the Court of Errors in Sisters of Charity v. Cory, 73 N. J. Law, 699, at page 706, 65 Atl. 500, for in this case the natural construction of the language forbids the exemption. In order to be exempt the building must be actually used, and it was held under the tax act of 1866 (Act April 11, 1866 [P. L. p. 1078]), prior to the present revision of 1903 (Act April 8, 1903 [P. L. 394]), that a building intended for a charitable use, but not yet used for that purpose, was not exempt from taxation. Presbyterian Board v. Fisher, 68 N. J. Law, 143, 52 Atl. 228. The doubt suggested in that case as to the taxability of property where preparations were making before or at the time of the assessment to appropriate and use the property for the charitable purpose is removed by the change in the language of the act and the insertion of the words "actually used." The most that can be said in the present case is that the building was intended to be thereafter used for a charitable purpose.
The tax in this case must therefore be affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
South Iowa Methodist Homes, Inc. v. Board of Review of Cass County
...had been made for use for charitable purposes. At that time the statute said only 'used'. In Institute of Holy Angels v. Borough of Ft. Lee (1910), 80 N.J.L. 545, 77 A. 1035, which denied exemption to a building under construction the court said: '* * * in this case the natural construction......
-
State v. Ritschel
...thus serves to remove all doubt as to whether the exemption applies to future as well as to present use. Institute of Holy Angels v. Borough of Fort Lee, 80 N.J.L. 545, 77 A. 1035. So it is here. The legislature in effect said that a cemetery association may hold land and property only for ......
-
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Coward, 7246.
...v. Orange, 3 N.J. Misc. 404, 128 A. 580; Longport v. Bamberger Seashore Home, 91 N.J.L. 330, 102 A. 633; Institute of Holy Angels v. Fort Lee, 80 N.J.L. 545, 77 A. 1035. 13 A General's Counsel's memorandum so holds, "* * * the Bureau has never taken the position that insofar as the accrual ......
-
Christian Mission John 3:16 v. Passaic City
...can be said ... is that the building was intended to be thereafter used for a charitable purpose." Inst. of Holy Angels v. Borough of Fort Lee, 80 N.J.L. 545, 546, 77 A. 1035 (Sup. Ct. 1910). And the Tax Court reached a similar result in 1982, even though -- as here -- prayer services were ......