Troy Conference Academy v. Town of Poultney Et Als

• Decision Date: 03 May 1949
• Citation: 66 A.2d 2,115 Vt. 480
• Parties: TROY CONFERENCE ACADEMY ET AL. v. TOWN OF POULTNEY ET ALS
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

66 A.2d 2

115 Vt. 480

TROY CONFERENCE ACADEMY ET AL. v. TOWN OF POULTNEY ET ALS

Supreme Court of Vermont

May 3, 1949

February Term, 1949.

Taxation.

1. Repeal of a statute by implication is not favored, but may result from one of two situations: (1) when the acts are so far repugnant that they cannot stand together and (2) when, though not repugnant, the later act covers the whole subject matter of the former and plainly shows that it was intended as a substitute therefor.

2. If there are two statutes upon the same subject-matter which are repugnant, the later operates as a repeal of the first so far as the repugnancy exists, but no further.

3. Where there are two statutes upon the same subject, the earlier being special and the later general, the presumption is, in the absence of an express repeal, or an absolute incompatibility, that the special is intended to remain in force as an exception to the general.

4. A special act must yield to a later general act where there is a manifest legislative intent that the general act shall be of universal application notwithstanding the prior special act.

5. Before the enactment of No. 33 of the Acts of 1910 lands owned by a college were exempt from taxation, although held as an investment and rented for purposes not directly connected with the running of the institution.

6. A statute providing for an exemption from taxation is to be strictly construed, although the construction must be reasonable and not such as would defeat the purposes of the statute.

7. Dormitories and dining halls furnished by colleges for the use of their students are regarded as devoted to college purposes, and the fact that certain sums are paid for the use of the rooms therein does not affect their exemption.

8. Where a building owned by a college is used in a manner which the governing body of the college in good faith deem directly connected with the running of the institution as a college and promotive of its purposes, and such judgment is reasonably supported by the facts, it may properly be found that such building is exempt from taxation under P. L. 590.

9. It is the fundamental rule of statutory construction that the intention of the Legislature must be ascertained and given effect.

10. It is always presumed in regard to a statute that no unjust or unreasonable result was intended by the Legislature.

11. Where a statute is equivocally worded, so that the meaning is obscure, resort may be had to extrinsic matters, such as the history of the enactment and the trend of previous legislation, to ascertain that meaning.

12. In view of the language of No. 12 of the Acts of 1941, of the legislative trend toward limiting and curtailing exemptions from taxation, and other indications of legislative intent, held, that that act is one of universal application and repeals a previous special act so far as the two are repugnant.

BILL IN CHANCERY to restrain the assessment and collection of certain taxes. In Chancery, Rutland County, Black Chancellor. Decree for the plaintiffs.

Decree reversed, and cause remanded with directions that the bill be dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Bloomer & Bloomer and Sennett & Sennett for the defendants.

Lawrence & O'Brien and J. Malcolm Williams for the plaintiff.

Present: SHERBURNE, JEFFORDS, CLEARY and ADAMS, JJ. and BLACKMER, Supr. J.

OPINION

SHERBURNE

This is a bill in chancery to restrain the defendants from assessing or collecting any future taxes with respect to a piece of real estate owned by the plaintiff and known as the "Humphrey House", and to require the repayment of taxes thereon for the year 1945, which had been paid under protest. After hearing and filing of findings of fact a decree was entered for the plaintiff, and the cause has been brought here upon exceptions by the defendants.

The findings show the following facts: The plaintiff was incorporated under the name of Troy Conference Academy in 1834, by an act of the General Assembly. Sections 6 and 9 of this act read as follows:

"Sec. 6. It is hereby further enacted, that all necessary buildings of the institution, together with the lands to be connected therewith for the purpose of uniting manual labor with education, together with all philosophical apparatus and library of the institution, shall be exempt from taxation.

"Sec. 9. It is hereby further enacted, That all the privileges of this act shall be under the control of this, or any future legislature, so as to alter, amend or repeal the same, at pleasure, as the public good may require."

In 1936 its name was amended to read "Troy Conference Academy And Green Mountain Junior College". It has no capital stock and is not organized or operated for profit. All its income is used for the operation, maintenance and improvement of its educational facilities. It is an educational institution, now known as a junior college, with a faculty of 26 instructors and teachers and about 40 other employees. It has about 300 students. Located on the school grounds are the usual buildings for such a school. At time of the hearing all of the available rooms in the dormitories were occupied by students, and it furnished room and board to 284 students and board alone to 18 others. In March, 1945, it purchased the so-called Humphrey property, a large house and lot located in the defendant municipalities and about 200 yards from the center of plaintiff's campus, for the purpose of making it into a home for members of the faculty, and has since maintained and supervised it. Since the fall of 1945, it has been occupied by eight members of the plaintiff's faculty, and three rooms on the first floor have been used as reception rooms. All other members of the faculty reside in homes off the campus. Although there are no class rooms in this house some instruction is given there, and meetings of students and others are held there several times each week of the school year. Students go there for individual tutoring and to confer with its occupants. It is vacant during the summer vacation. Compensation of all faculty members is figured on the basis of whether board and room is furnished, and the plaintiff's books reflect a debit entry of $ 400 per year against the salary of each one rooming in this house as a charge for room and board and of $ 160 per year for room alone. There has been a shortage of homes for rent or for sale in Poultney since prior to 1945, but it is not found that rooms for rent to faculty members were unobtainable during this period. The several defendants have never voted to exempt this property from taxation, nor have they been requested to do so in pursuance of No. 12 of the Acts of 1941.

In his decree the chancellor adjudged, among other things, that the Humphrey House is and has been at all material times a reasonably necessary building of plaintiff, and is and has been at all material times exempt from local taxation in accordance with Section 6 of plaintiff's charter.

The defendants claim that the Humphrey House is not exempt under Section 6 of plaintiff's charter, because that section is no longer effective, but has been amended and changed, first by P. L. 590, sub-sec. IV, and second by No. 12 of the Acts of 1941; that it is not exempt under P. L. 590, sub-sec. IV because rented for commercial purposes, and, if exempt under that statute, that it is taxable under the provisions of No. 12 of the Acts of 1941.

So far as here material P. L. 590 reads as follows:

"Sec. 590. The following property shall be exempt from taxation:

"IV. Real and personal estate granted, sequestered or used for public, pious or charitable uses;... and lands owned or leased by colleges, academies or other public schools.... The exemption of lands owned or leased by colleges, academies or other public schools, shall not apply to lands or buildings rented for general commercial purposes, nor to farming or timber lands owned or leased thereby, but this provision shall not affect the exemption of so-called school or college lands, sequestered to such use prior to January 28, 1911."

These provisions have been carried forward into V. S. 649, sub-sec. IV, rev. of 1947. Except for the last sentence, which was first enacted by No. 33 of the Acts of 1910, these provisions in substance have been in effect since the enactment of Section 5 of No. 16 of the Acts of 1841, and possibly much longer.

Section I of No. 12 of the Acts of 1941, reads as follows:

"Section 1. Any real property acquired after passage of this bill by any college, university or fraternity such as would be exempt from taxation under the provisions of section 590 of the Public Laws, shall be set to such institution in the grand list of the town or city in which such real property is located at the value fixed in the quadrennial appraisal next preceding the date of acquisition of such property and taxed on such valuation; provided, however, that the voters of any town or city may at any legal meeting thereof vote to exempt such property from taxation. The value fixed on such property at such quadrennial appraisal shall not be increased so long as the property is owned and used by such institution for other than commercial and charitable purposes, whether or not improvements are made thereon."

This has been carried forward into V. S. 650, rev. of 1947, but the word "charitable" in the last sentence has been amended to read "investment". Defendants claim nothing for the use of this word.

There are no express words of repeal in these statutes, and repeals by implication are not favored. But such a repeal may result in one of two situations: (1) When the acts are so far repugnant that they cannot stand together. (2) When, though not repugnant, the later act covers the...