Sanitarium v. Inhabitants of Stoneham

Decision Date28 February 1910
Citation91 N.E. 385,205 Mass. 335
PartiesNEW ENGLAND SANITARIUM v. INHABITANTS OF STONEHAM.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Report from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Wm. Cushing Wait, Judge.

Petition by the New England Sanitarium against the Inhabitants of Stoneham for an abatement of the tax assessed on petitioner's property for the year 1907. The superior court refused to dismiss the petition, and respondent excepted; but the exceptions were waived, and the case reported to the Supreme Judicial Court. Judgment ordered for the petitioner.

Stebbins, Storer & Burbank, for petitioner.

Lowell & Lowell and Luther Hill, for respondent.

BRALEY, J.

The exceptions to the denial of the motion to dismiss having been waived, the report of the presiding judge presents for decision the question whether the real and personal property of the petitioner, upon which the respondent assessed and collected a tax, was exempt under the provisions of Rev. Laws, c. 12, § 5, cl. 3. It was incorporated ‘for the purpose of founding a hospital or charitable asylum, within the state of Massachusetts for the care and relief of indigent or other sick or infirm persons, at which institution may be received also patients and patrons who are able to pay for the benefits therein received, and which institution shall devote the funds and property acquired, and received by it from time to time, and from all sources, exclusively to maintain itself, improve its conditions, and facilities, extending its benefits and usefulness, and facilitating and promoting its purposes by such sanitary, dietetic, hygiene and philanthropic reforms and efforts, as are germane or auxiliary thereto; all of said purposes being undenominational, nonsectarian, humanitarian, charitable and benevolent, and in no manner directly or indirectly for profit or dividend paying to pay one.’ The report states very fully the endowment and financial resources of the corporation, and the details of its management in the reception and care of the classes of patients who were admitted. It appears that the land and buildings, with their furnishings and equipment as a hospital, were paid for by contributions, supplemented by loans and mortgages from friends, and the entire income from all sources is spent in furtherance of the purposes of the institution, while the members, and officers, with the exception of the treasurer, give their services. In its advertisements in medical journals, and the pamphlet descriptive of the institution and its methods, while the graduated cost of board and expenses of medical services and nurses were given, a statement of its chartiable character, and that under its charter all earnings not needed for expenses, improvements and medical appliances were to be devoted to benevolent work, also appears. It invited, at different prices, those who needed rest with mental diversion, and chronic invalids for treatment, while excluding persons suffering from contagious or incurable diseases, or who were insane or epileptic. If those who applied for free treatment, or for a reduction from the regular rates, were not admitted, until a committee had passed upon the character and financial standing of the applicant, a regulation of this nature was not only reasonable, but necessary to prevent imposition. In his summary of the work accomplished during the six years of its domicile in the defendant town, the commissioner states that of the entire number of patients admitted by far the larger part were paying patients, but it also appears that the expenses in some years were so increased by caring for three patients and those who could not pay in full, and by disbursements for outside charitable work, that a deficit resulted. The commissioner, while not explicitly separating his findings of fact from his rulings of law, upon which the judge affirmed and ordered judgment for the respondent, leaves no doubt as to the grounds upon which he refused to rule, as requested by the petitioner, that it was a charitable corporation. They appear in these paragraphs which follow the findings of fact:

‘The plaintiff was not run as a public hospital under obligation to receive and care for the sick, and care for at any time the indigent and sick. While it intended mainly to care for the sick it might fill up its rooms with those who were not sick in the ordinary meaning of the word, and who could pay for the benefit received. It in fact received a large number of this class.’

‘It was run rather as a health resort which, while its purposes were humanitarian, did not necessarily or primarily help to relieve the community of its burden of caring for the indigent and sick.’

It may be conceded that a trust for the exclusive benefit of the least wealthy of a well-to-do or prosperous class could not be sustained as a charity under St. 43 Eliz. c. 4. Atty. Gen. v. Northumberland, L. R. 7 Ch. Div. 745. But the controlling purpose may be none the less charitable, even if those who need no pecuniary aid are either directly or indirectly benefited. A hospital established for the free treatment of poor patients may receive payments from rich persons who are permitted to avail themselves of its benefits. Every charity created for the gratuitous treatment and relief of disease, or the physical infirmities of the indigent, or other purposes enumerated in this statute, or, if not enumerated, which are held to come within its spirit and intendment, in a large...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Sessions v. Thomas D. Dee Memorial Hospital Ass'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • April 25, 1938
    ... ... L. Ry. , 73 Mont. 407, ... 236 P. 1069; Nebraska: Duncan v. Nebraska ... Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass'n , 92 Neb. 162, 137 N.W ... 1120, 41 N.W. 973, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 1127; New ... 265, 100 A. 301, L. R. A. 1917D, 967; Massachusetts: New ... England Sanitarium v. Stoneham , 205 Mass. 335, ... 91 N.E. 385; Zoulalian v. New England Sanatorium ... & Benevolent Ass'n , ... ...
  • Bd. of Assessors of Boston v. Garland Sch. of Home Making
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 25, 1937
  • Young Women's Christian Ass'n v. Baumann
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • July 5, 1939
    ... ... 1076; Hot Springs School Dist. v. Sisters of Mercy, ... 106 S.W. 954; New England Sanitarium v. Stonham, 91 ... N.E. 385; State ex rel. Cunningham v. Board of ... Review, 26 So. 872; ... ...
  • Board of Assessors of Boston v. Garland School of Home Making
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • January 25, 1937
    ... ... institution. New England Sanitarium v. Stoneham, 205 ... Mass. 335 , 342, 343. See Williston Seminary v. County ... Commissioners, ... ...
  • 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