Third Congregational Soc. v. City of Springfield

• Decision Date: 09 October 1888
• Citation: 147 Mass. 396,18 N.E. 68
• Parties: THIRD CONGREGATIONAL SOC. v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

147 Mass. 396

18 N.E. 68

THIRD CONGREGATIONAL SOC.

v.CITY OF SPRINGFIELD.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

October 9, 1888.

Appeal from superior court, Hampden county.

Action to recover back $179.40 assessed to the plaintiff by the defendant city, and paid by the plaintiff under protest. The case was submitted to the court upon the following agreed statement of facts: the plaintiff is and was a religious society in Springfield, duly incorporated, and is and has been for about 20 years the owner of a church edifice, and grounds surrounding the same, situated in said Springfield. Plaintiff has never used this property, or any portion of it, for other than religious purposes, unless the use of its parsonage, as hereinafter described, shall be deemed such other use. In 1886 there was erected upon the abovementioned land of plaintiff, and within a few feet of its church edifice, a building to be used as a parsonage for plaintiff's pastor, and was a gift to the society for that purpose. Ever since the completion of the parsonage it has been occupied by the settled clergyman of plaintiff society, and used by him and his family as a dwelling-house, free of rent, under a vote of the society, as follows: “That the pastor [naming him] be allowed the use of the parsonage during his pastorate, free of rent, he paying water-rates, and making such repairs as tenants are liable to make.” No change was made as to the amount of his salary, but it has remained the same as it was before the parsonage was built, nor has any vote been passed by the society touching the use of the parsonage except as stated. The plaintiff's pastor occupied the parsonage in accordance with the vote above quoted, and by no other authority or tenure, the plaintiff never having derived any income therefrom. No land is devoted to the use of the parsonage, except that upon which it stands. All the walks and driveways used for access to and egress from said parsonage are the same that were used for access to and egress from the church edifice before the parsonage was built. The defendant, in 1887, assessed a tax upon the parsonage and land upon which it stands, amounting to $179.40, which was paid under protest, and this suit brought to recover back the same. The superior court ordered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.

[147 Mass. 397]A.M. Copeland, for plaintiff.

It has always been the policy of this commonwealth to exempt from taxation property devoted to educational, charitable, and religious uses, belonging to institutions incorporated for either of these purposes. Most of the present legislation touching these exemptions is comprised in Pub.St. c. 11, § 5, cls. 3, 7. See, also, Pierce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush. 611;Hospital v. Somerville, 101 Mass. 319;Chapel v. Boston, 120 Mass. 212;Society v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178;Proprietors v. Lowell, 1 Metc. 538. The parsonage is a part of the church property. It is used in connection with the church, and for the purposes of the church as a religious society. The relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the society and its pastor. The use of it is in no sense remunerative. It brings in no income. It is used by one religious teacher precisely as officers of a college would occupy a dwelling-house belongingto the corporation, free of rent. It is as much exempt from taxation as the dwelling-house used by the servant in the case of Hospital v. Somerville, or as the clergy-house conceded to be exempt in Society v. Boston. The exemption is not limited to the church edifice and the ground under it, but includes a reasonable amount of land surrounding it. Church v. Boston, 118 Mass. 164. A farm surrounding the buildings of an educational or charitable institution, although not a necessary part of the institution, may, in the language of the court, in Proprietors v. Lowell, 1 Metc. 541, be used “for purposes connected with it,” so as to come within the exemption. Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 599; Hospital v. Somerville, supra; School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139, 13 N.E.Rep. 354.

J.B. Carroll, for defendant.

There is no provision of statute by which a parsonage of a religious society is exempt from taxation under statutes similar to our own. It has been held that a parsonage belonging to a religious society is subject to taxation. Gerke v. Purcell, 25 Ohio St. 229, 248;Church v. Board, 12 Minn. 395, (Gil. 280.) The fact that the parsonage is occasionally used for church meetings does not exempt it. Church v. Providence, 12 R.I. 19. The parsonage being used for secular purposes, it is subject to taxation. Hennepin v. Grace, 27 Minn. 503,8 N.W.Rep. 761; State v. Axtell, 41 N.J.Law, 117. If any doubt arises as to the exemption claimed, it must operate most strongly against the party claiming it. Society v. Boston, 127 Mass. 378;Society v. Boston, 129 Mass. 178.

DEVENS, J.

Pub.St. c. 11, § 5, cl. 3, provides that “the personal property of literary, benevolent, and charitable institutions, incorporated within this commonwealth, and the real estate belonging to such institutions, occupied by them or their officers, for the purposes for which they were incorporated, shall be exempt from taxation. The seventh clause exempts from taxation “houses of religious worship owned by a religious society, or held in trust for the use of religious organizations, and the pews and furniture, (except for parochial...