The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestry, of Christ Church, In the City of Philadelphia, In Trust For Christ Church Hospital, Plaintiffs In Error v. the County of Philadelphia

Decision Date01 December 1857
Citation15 L.Ed. 802,20 How. 26,61 U.S. 26
PartiesTHE RECTOR, CHURCH WARDENS, AND VESTRY, OF CHRIST CHURCH, IN THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, IN TRUST FOR CHRIST CHURCH HOSPITAL, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.

As the decision of the court was, that the record did not show any ground of jurisdiction under the 25th section of the judiciary act, it will be proper to state what that record was.

The acts of 1833 and 1851 are recited in the opinion of the court, and need not be repeated.

The rector and church wardens were assessed for taxes upon several pieces of property, amongst which was the following:

Lower Delaware ward, No. 8 Cherry street, Hospital lot, &c., $126.

They paid the tax upon the whole assessment, including the above, under protest, and then brought an action in the State court to recover the amount so paid. The court decided in favor of the defendants. Upon being carried to the Supreme Court of the State, that court reversed the judgment of the court below, so far as respected the tax upon the Hospital lot. The rector and church wardens, believing that the whole of the property ought to be exempted from taxation, brought the case to this court. The question which they intended to raise was, whether or not the act of 1833 was a contract, irrepealable except with their consent. But the record presented only the following state of facts.

March Term, 1853, No. 145. Docket Entries.

The Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen, of Christ Church, in the City of Philadelphia, in trust for Christ Church Hospital,

v.

The County of Philadelphia.

H. M. WATTS.

145.

W. D. BAKER.

Summons case ret'ble the first Monday of June, 1853, exit 11th May, 1853.

'Service accepted.'

March 3d, 1854.—Case stated in the nature of a special vervict filed.

April 1, 1854.—Judgment entered without argument for defendants by the court. By writing filed, it is agreed that the above case may be removed by the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court, without any recognizance being given by them. Eo die assignments of errors filed.

April 4, 1854.—Argued.

December 27, 1854.—Reargued.

March 12, 1855.—Opinion by C. J. Lewis, judgment reversed, and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in error for the sum of one hundred and twenty-six dollars, with costs. Eo die opinion filed.

The case was submitted on a printed argument, by Mr. Watts and Mr. Meredith for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Porter for the defendants.

The arguments proceeded upon the ground that the question of impairing the obligation of a contract was raised by the record; but, as the court decided that no such question was properly involved in the discussion, it is thought unnecessary to report the arguments.

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, under the 25th section of the judiciary act of the 24th September, 1789.

These parties, without any pleadings, stated a case, in the nature of a special verdict to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania, upon which a final judgment was rendered. It appears from the case, that in April, 1833, the Legislature of Pennsylvania enacted: 'That...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Massachusetts Gen. Hosp. v. Inhabitants of Belmont 
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1919
    ...of public policy. That may be changed by the general court provided no other constitutional guaranty is offended. Christ's Church v. Philadelphia, 24 How. 30, 15 L. Ed. 802;Grand Lodge v. New Orleans, 166 U. S. 143, 17 Sup. Ct. 523, 41 L. Ed. 951;Stanislaus v. San Joaquin & King's River Can......
  • Leak v. Joslin
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1908
    ... ... Error from United States Court for the Western District ... and possessed of lot 3 in block 465 in the city of Wagoner, Ind. T.; the same having been ... has no title to said strip except in trust for defendants; that in equity and good ... Watts and De Roos Bailey, for plaintiffs in error. Robert F. Blair, for defendant in ... Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 24 L. Ed. 848; Rector v. Gibbons, 111 U.S. 276, 28 L. Ed. 427; Johnson ... ...
  • Leak v. Joslin
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1908
    ... ...          Error ... from United States Court for the Western ... and possessed of lot 3 in block 465 in the city of Wagoner, ... Ind. T.; the same having been ... has no title to said strip except in trust for defendants; ... that in equity and good ... G. Watts and De Roos Bailey, for plaintiffs in error ...          Robert ... F ... Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 24 L.Ed. 849; Rector v ... Gibbon, 111 U.S. 276, 4 S.Ct. 605, 28 ... ...

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