Thiel College v. County of Mercer

• Decision Date: 02 January 1883
• Citation: 101 Pa. 530
• Parties: Thiel College <I>versus</I> The County of Mercer.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 530

101 Pa. 530

Thiel College versus The County of Mercer.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 27, 1882.

January 2, 1883.

November 27th 1882.

Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer county: Of July Term 1882, No. 133.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

E. S. Templeton and Samuel Griffith & Son, for plaintiffs in error.—The charter and conduct of this institution bring it within the constitutional and legislative exemption from taxation, as an institution of learning and public charity. The case is ruled by Miller v. Porter, 3 P. F. S. 292. The fact that the students pay for a portion of their education in work, or money, does not make the institution the less a public charity. In Miller v. Porter, supra, the Chief Justice says: "No matter that it was not a free school; it was to bring the opportunities of education nearer home to the people, and he who cheapens popular education, or tempts a larger number into wisdom's ways, is a public benefactor, and what he does is, in the sense of the statute, a charity:" Gooch v. Association for Aged Females, 109 Mass. Rep. 566, 567. None of the numerous cases in Pennsylvania on the question are directly opposed to our contention and most of them support it: Witman v. Lex, 17 S. & R. 88; Martin v. McCord, 5 Watts 493; Morrison v. Beirer, 2 W. & S. 81; Wright v. Linn, 9 Barr 433; McKissick v. Pickle, 4 Harris 140; Barr v. Weld, 12 Harris 84; City of Philadelphia v. Bicknell, 11 Casey 123; Stallman's Appeal, 2 Wright 200.

Mason (Zeigler & Bowser with him), for the defendant in error.

Mr. Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court, January 2d 1883.

We must read the first section of article ninth of the constitution and the Act of May 14th 1874, together, and as there is no real conflict between them, the former may help us to interpret the latter. The constitution exempts from taxation only "institutions of purely public charity," and the act, "all hospitals, universities, colleges, seminaries, academies, associations and institutions of learning, benevolence and charity, with the grounds thereunto annexed and necessary for the occupancy and enjoyment of the same, founded and endowed, and maintained by public or private charity."

The latter clause brings the act within the constitutional limitation; not only must the exempted institutions be of a public character; not only must they be founded and endowed by public or private charity, but they must be maintained in the same manner. But when we come to apply this constitutional and statutory definition to Thiel college it will not fit at all. From a legal standpoint it has not a single feature of a public charity about it. It is not even alleged that a solitary charity pupil is now within its walls, or that it is in contemplation that there ever shall be a pupil of that kind. What kind of a charity is that in which every one pays, either in money or work, for what he gets, whether it be food or education? And what is the object of these charges for boarding and tuition, if it be not to make this institution self-sustaining? If, however, that is its object, the intention is that it shall be supported, "maintained," by revenues which it may derive from what it has to sell — education, and not by private or public charity.

Concerning this corporation we may repeat what has been so well said by the learned judge of the court below: "The charter of this college enables it to receive charities, but imposes no liability on it to bestow any on the public. Its students pay for...