William T. Stead Memorial Center of New York v. Town of Wareham

• Decision Date: 31 January 1938
• Parties: WILLIAM T. STEAD MEMORIAL CENTER OF NEW YORK v. TOWN OF WAREHAM.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

299 Mass. 235

12 N.E.2d 725

WILLIAM T. STEAD MEMORIAL CENTER OF NEW YORK v. TOWN OF WAREHAM.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

January 31, 1938

April 9, 1937.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., FIELD, DONAHUE LUMMUS, & QUA, JJ.

Tax, Exemption.

The provisions of Section 5, Eleventh, of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59 did not require recovery from a town by a religious corporation in an action of contract of the amount of a tax, assessed and paid under protest upon a building used by the corporation only in part for religious worship and instruction.

CONTRACT. Writ in the Superior Court dated July 30, 1935. The action was heard without a jury by Fosdick, J. The plaintiff asked for, and the judge refused, a ruling that its property was exempt from taxation under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, Section 5, Eleventh. The judge stated: "Possibly in some other proceeding than one of this kind the exemption provided by the statute can be worked out for such portions of the property in question as are appropriated and truly and exclusively used for purposes of religious worship and instruction. I rule that on my findings the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action."

There was no contention of an exemption under Section 5, Third. There was a finding for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

H. J. Booras, (J.

A. Edgerly with him,) for the plaintiff.

J. F. Kiernan, for the defendant, submitted a brief.

RUGG, C.J. The plaintiff is a religious corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. It seeks by this action of contract to recover the sum paid by it for taxes assessed on its property in Wareham for the year 1934. The tax was paid by the plaintiff under a written protest. It appeared at the trial that the property upon which the tax was assessed was acquired by the plaintiff with donations by its various members for the dominant purpose of use as a summer church and center; and that from the time of its acquirement, and during the year of 1934, the primary purpose for which said property was being used was the advancement of the objects of, and in conformity to, the religious purposes and practices of the plaintiff. In accordance with the judgment of the board of trustees of the plaintiff, the pastor and other officials of the plaintiff were sent to remain on the property during the summer months, and to put the property to the use and practices of the plaintiff as a religious organization. Consequently, the pastor, the clerk, and the president of the plaintiff remained on the property during the summer months. They used some rooms for sleeping quarters, and also used the kitchen and dining room incidentally to their staying on the property in order to be of regular and continuous service in the execution and furtherance of the objects and religious purposes of the plaintiff. The premises were open to the members and adherents of the plaintiff, and to the public in general, at all times; and in addition to the solemnization of marriages baptisms, and burials, daily prayers were held, regular services at least twice a week, and daily seance sittings and meditations. Regular sermons and lectures were given to members of the general public, and pamphlets and books written and distributed gratuitously to libraries and to many people. At the close of the summer season the property would be closed during the remainder of the months, and a resumption of the same religious activities would be undertaken during the following summer season. The trial judge made these findings: "The property in question consists of a well built and attractive nine room dwelling house, suitable for year 'round occupancy, on a lot of land abutting the seashore in a community consisting almost wholly of houses used only during the summer months and not used for habitation during the rest of the year. The land is no greater in extent than comports with the use actually made of it by the plaintiff. The building was originally erected and used for a dwelling and not for a place of worship. The community in which it is located is one to which in the summer a great many persons resort who hold the same religious beliefs as that for the furtherance of which the plaintiff was formed and exists, broadly designated as Spiritualism. Certain of the rooms in the house are appropriated to and used wholly for the religious purposes of the plaintiff. Certain rooms, however, are bedrooms used wholly as such for the lodging of the plaintiff's pastor its president, its clerk and occasionally for others who take part in the public religious services of and public instructing in...