Town of Hamden v. City of New Haven

• Decision Date: 01 June 1917
• Citation: 101 A. 11,91 Conn. 589
• Parties: TOWN OF HAMDEN v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

101 A. 11

91 Conn. 589

TOWN OF HAMDEN

v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 1, 1917.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, New Haven County; Earnest C. Simpson, Judge.

Action by the Town of Hamden against the City of New Haven under statute to recover taxes. Judgment of Court of Common Pleas for plaintiff, and both parties appeal. No error.

Charles F. Clarke, of New Haven, for plaintiff. Charles Kleiner and Henry H. Townshend, both of New Haven, for defendant.

WHEELER, J. The town of Hamden sues to recover for taxes assessed on three pieces of real estate located in Hamden, just over the dividing line between New Haven and Hamden and adjacent to the Springside farm, which, in connection with the Springside Home, is owned and operated as a town poorhouse and farm for paupers belonging to the town of New Haven.

The first piece, called the Merchant piece, was purchased April 1, 1885, by the town of New Haven, and ever since has been used in connection with Springside farm for the purpose of pasturage, and was reasonably necessary for that purpose. The third, or Martino, piece, was purchased in 1903 by the city of New Haven, and has ever since been used for pasturage and for growing crops for the use of the inmates of the poorhouse, and for stock kept on the farm, and it was reasonably necessary for that purpose. The second, or Thomas, piece, was purchased in 1892 by the town of New Haven for the purpose of providing a water supply for the poorhouse and farm, but, this purpose proving impracticable, it was abandoned, and for 20 years this piece has not been used for any purpose and has remained rocky woodland, covered with scrub oaks.

The city of New Haven by consolidation with the town of New Haven became vested with its property prior to December 7, 1897, and liable for all debts which were enforceable against the town of New Haven.

All of the products raised on the farm were consumed upon the farm except a small quantity of hay which was used by the department of public works of the city. Some of the live stock raised in excess of the needs of the farm was sold. Upon the farm was conducted a piggery supported by the city of New Haven and maintained for the purpose of consuming the garbage collected in the city. The products of the piggery amounted to $18,000 annually, and about two-thirds of these were consumed by the inmates of the poorhouse and one-third sold in the market.

The defendant claims that all of these pieces of land were exempt from taxation because used for public purposes only. The plaintiff claims that none of these pieces were exempt, because their use was not for a public purpose and could be of no benefit to the town of Hamden, and in effect would compel Hamden to share the support of New Haven's paupers. The trial court held that the first, or Merchant, piece, and the third, or Martino, piece, were exempt from taxation, and the second, or Thomas, piece, was not exempt

General Statutes, § 2315, as construed by our court in West Hartford v. Water Commissioners, 44 Conn. 368, exempts from taxation all property held by municipalities for public use. And this rule obtains, although the property belonging to one town is located in another town which claimed the right to tax it. In either case the property will be exempt when it is used for, or employed in a public use. The devotion of the property to a public use is the sole ground of the exemption. West Hartford v. Water Commissioners, supra; New London v. Perkins, 87 Conn. 233, 87 Atl. 724.

Counsel for the town of Hamden advance the theory that the principle behind an exemption from taxation of the property of one town located in another town is a benefit accruing to the public from the public use to which the land is put, and that the absence of such benefit removes the foundation for such exemption. With us this theory has never had a foothold. The main reliance of the plaintiff is upon the case of Newport v. Unity, 68 N. H. 593, 44 Atl. 704, 73 Am. St. Rep. 626. The point decided related to the statute of New Hampshire. The argument of the opinion supports the principle contended for, but the court expressly notes that our decision in West Hartford v. Commissioners holds that the property is exempt from taxation "because it is used for public purposes." This is the principle of our decisions and it conflicts directly with the New Hampshire doctrine.

The plaintiff's appeal is to be decided by ascertaining whether the uses of the Merchant and Martino pieces were for a public purpose. Our statutes providing for the care of the poor were framed in the humane purpose "to prevent as far as possible any person, under any circumstances, from suffering for the necessaries of life." G. S. §§ 2476-2492. Charter of New Haven, § 202, fulfills a similar purpose. Beyond question this is a public purpose and a legitimate exercise of governmental power. The statutes (section 2490) expressly authorize the maintenance of poorhouses for the poor and the charter of New Haven expressly makes all statutory provisions concerning town poor-houses applicable to the city of New Haven. The town of Hamden contends that New Haven is without authority to own or operate a town farm, and that such operation is...