St. Peter's Church, Shakopee, v. County of Scott

• Decision Date: 01 January 1867
• Citation: 12 Minn. 280
• Parties: ST. PETER'S CHURCH, SHAKOPEE, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, COUNTY OF SCOTT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 280

12 Minn. 280

ST. PETER'S CHURCH, SHAKOPEE,

v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, COUNTY OF SCOTT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Scott county, overruling a demurrer to the complaint.

The action is to recover back money paid to prevent a sale of lots 9 and 10, block 49, in Shakopee, for taxes for the year 1863, and restrain the collection of taxes levied thereon for the year 1865. It proceeds on the theory that the property is exempt from taxation, as church property. The complaint shows in brief that plaintiff, in April, 1861, became seized of the two lots which adjoin each other and make a tract 142 by 120 feet; that plaintiff erected on the south end of the two lots, partly on each, a dwelling for its rector or pastor, and that during part of the year 1861, and ever since, he occupied it; that in 1862 plaintiff placed on the north end of the two lots, partly on each, a church edifice, which it has since used exclusively for public religious services; that in the years 1861 and 1862 taxes were levied and assessed on the two lots separately; that in 1863 they were levied and assessed on the south half of the two lots, which were described on the assessment roll as "S. ½ of lots 9 and 10, block 49, Shakopee city," said premises being bounded on the west by Holmes street, and on the north by Third street; that in 1864 no taxes were levied on the premises, but taxes were levied and assessed thereon for the year 1865; that to prevent the sale for the year 1863, the plaintiff, under protest, paid the taxes for that year and costs.

John L. Macdonald, for appellant.

Chatfield & Irwin, for respondent.

McMILLAN, J.

The legislature of this state, pursuant to article 9, § 3, of the constitution, have by general law provided that, among other things, all houses used exclusively for public worship, the books and furniture therein, and the grounds attached to such building necessary for the proper occupancy, use, and enjoyment of the same, and not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit shall be exempt from taxation. Subdivision 1, § 3, c. 1, Laws 1860, and Laws 1861, p. 16. As the burdens of government should be borne by all the citizens in equal proportions, no property should be exempt from taxation in the absence of clear and explicit legislation authorizing the same, and in the construction of a law exempting property from taxation, courts will indulge no presumption that will extend the exemption beyond the plain requirements of the law itself. We are unable to discover, under the terms of the law, any reason why the residence of a rector, pastor, or priest of a church or congregation should be exempt from taxation. The use of a house or building as a residence or place of abode is an ordinary and secular use, and the fact that it is occupied for that purpose by a rector, pastor, or priest, does not in law change its nature, or sanctify its use. Such a house, therefore, is not used by the church or society to which it belongs exclusively for public worship and the grounds attached thereto being appropriated to a different purpose cannot be necessary for the proper occupancy, use, and enjoyment of a house used exclusively for such worship. We are, therefore, of opinion that the building or house occupied as a residence by the rector, and the premises connected with it, are not exempt from taxation.

We are next to consider whether the taxes mentioned in the complaint are properly assessed. It is not disputed that the south half of the lots is attached to and connected with the parsonage, and the north half of the same with the church. The plaintiff became seized of the lots on the fifteenth of April, 1861, by deed of conveyance, and during that year erected thereon a dwelling-house for the pastor or rector, the house of worship owned and used by the plaintiff being situated on another lot. Whether the conveyance was in trust for church purposes or not; whether the trust had been forfeited or not, — are questions entirely immaterial on this demurrer. The question here is of actual use and statutory exemption from taxation. Under the views we have expressed the parsonage was not exempt, and during the year 1861 it appears that the only building on the lots was the parsonage; for this year, therefore, the property was taxable, and the taxes were properly assessed. The complaint avers that during the year 1862 the plaintiff removed the church edifice or building to and on these lots, but at what time does not appear. It is required by law that the taxes be assessed prior to the first Monday in August. Whether the removal took place before this time or not, is not shown. The taxes may have been assessed prior to the removal of the building, and the presumption is that they were properly assessed. As the complaint attacks the validity of the tax, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show that the tax is illegal, and not having done so the complaint is defective. O'Kane v. Treat, 25 Ill. 577. The complaint further alleges that the taxes for 1863 and 1865, respectively, were levied upon the "S. ½ of lots 9 and 10, in block 49," "Shakopee city," described upon the assessment and tax rolls in that manner, and not otherwise....