Klein v. City of Bridgeport

Decision Date05 January 1939
Citation125 Conn. 129,3 A.2d 675
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesKLEIN et al. v. CITY OF BRIDGEPORT.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Arthur F. Ells, Judge.

Proceeding by Milton Klein and others against the City of Bridgeport, to have certain lands and buildings exempted from taxation brought to the superior court and tried to the court upon appeal from the action of the board of relief of the City of Bridgeport in refusing to adjudge the property to be exempt. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.

No error.

James C. Shannon, of Bridgeport, for appellants.

David Goldstein, of Bridgeport, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BROWN, and JENNINGS, JJ.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiffs are trustees under the wills of Jacob B. Klein and Ray R. Klein. Under the terms of these wills they were authorized to establish the ‘ Klein Memorial,’ and, for that purpose, to acquire property in a certain section of Bridgeport and to erect thereon an auditorium for the city of Bridgeport to be used for lectures, musical and other entertainments for the benefit of the public; and they were authorized to devote a large sum for the acquisition of the property, the construction of the auditorium, and as a fund for its maintenance. After the city had accepted purposes three adjoining parcels of real estate upon Fairfield Avenue. In the month of October, 1937, the tax assessor of Bridgeport listed the property belonging to the applicants as taxable in the city and fixed a valuation upon the land and the buildings thereon. The applicants then filed a tax exemption statement with the tax assessor who rejected their claim for exemption; and thereafter they appealed to the board of relief where their claim for exemption was likewise denied and thence brought their appeal to the Superior Court. After hearing the parties the Superior Court entered judgment for the defendant. In the finding it appears that on October 1, 1937, the buildings on two of the pieces of real estate were vacant, the trustees having refused to rent them because they intended ultimately to use the property for the exclusive purpose of erecting thereon the ‘ Klein Memorial.’ On that date, however, the trustees had not engaged an architect, nor cleared the property, nor made any plans to construct the auditorium. One of the pieces of real estate on that date was rented until February 18, 1938, subject to immediate termination of the tenancy upon notice. The money received was added to the trust fund. All the real estate was purchased with the bona fide intention of using it at some future time for a charitable purpose, but, on the date of taxation, the real estate had not yet been used by the public for public purposes. The trial court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to exemption under General Statutes, § 1163(5), appended in the footnote.[1]

Under the terms of those wills the memorial building which the trustees were empowered to construct was, when constructed to belong to the city of Bridgeport and to be used by it for lectures, musical and other entertainments for the education and benefit of the public. Trusts of this character concern philanthropy and charity and affect the welfare of individuals and the community, and, as a consequence of their public nature, are treated by our law with the utmost liberality in order to carry out the charitable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Waterbury Sav. Bank v. Danaher
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • November 6, 1941
    ...the principle that exempting statutes are strictly construed and exempt only what is strictly within their terms. Klein v. Bridgeport, 125 Conn. 129, 131, 3 A.2d 675; Woodstock v. The Retreat, Inc., 125 Conn. 52, 56, 3 A.2d 232; Bickart v. Sanditz, 105 Conn. 766, 772, 136 A. The restrictive......
  • Ziperstein v. Tax Com'r
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1979
    ...168 Conn. 597, 599, 362 A.2d 847 (1975); McLaughlin v. Poucher, 127 Conn. 441, 444, 17 A.2d 767 (1941); Klein v. Bridgeport, 125 Conn. 129, 131, 3 A.2d 675 (1939); 85 C.J.S. Taxation § 1098. For the purposes of the present case, the statutory requirements for a sales and use tax exemption a......
  • In re Swayze's Estate
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1948
    ... ... [191 P.2d 323] ...           [120 ... Mont. 547] Frank E. Blair, of Virginia City, for appellant ...          Corette & Corette and Kendrick Smith, all of Butte, and ... N.J.Eq. 386, 108 A. 16; Shannonhouse v. Wolfe, 191 ... N.C. 769, 133 S.E. 93; Klein v. City of Bridgeport, ... 125 Conn. 129, 3 A.2d 675 ...          It has ... been ... ...
  • McLaughlin v. Poucher
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1941
    ... ... Pallotti, Atty. Gen., for ... plaintiff ... John ... T. Curtis, of Bridgeport, for Poucher and others ... W ... Arthur Countryman, Jr., of Hartford, for defendant ... imposing taxes are to be construed strictly applies to gifts ... of a charitable nature. Klein v. Bridgeport, 125 ... Conn. 129, 131, 3 A.2d 675. However, ‘ the rule, in ... truth, is based ... ...
  • 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