Eckstein v. United States

10 F. Supp. 231, 80 Ct. Cl. 725
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 4, 1935
DocketNo. 42075
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 F. Supp. 231 (Eckstein v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eckstein v. United States, 10 F. Supp. 231, 80 Ct. Cl. 725 (cc 1935).

Opinion

LITTLETON, Judge.

Plaintiff sues to recover income taxes of $21,643.10 for 1926 and $22,657.61 for 1928. The income upon which this tax was computed and paid was derived from business carried on in buildings located or constructed upon lands reserved by the state of Illinois, located in the city of Chicago, and leased, in two instances, to persons of whom plaintiff was the assignee and, in one instance, to the plaintiff and others, by the board of education of the city of Chicago under authority of the state.

Plaintiff contends that the United States was without power under the constitutional limitation to tax the income derived by him, as lessee, from three leases made by the board of education as a means of raising funds exclusively for school purposes in furtherance of the express trust for the use of schools upon which the leased premises had been granted by the United States to the state of' Illinois upon its admission into the Union; title to the premises since then, at all times, having been held by the state and its political subdivision in trust for school purposes.

The lands, upon which the leases involved in this case were granted, were reserved exclusively for school purposes, and the rentals received therefor by the board of education were devoted exclusively to the -maintenance and operation of public schools, an essential governmental function;

The facts concerning the three leases and the income of plaintiff are as follows:

The Mercantile Lease.

On and prior to May 8, 1880, and continuously to the present time, the title to lots 4, 5, and 6 in block 142, school section addition to the city of Chicago, a subdivision of section 16, township 39 north, range 14, east of the third principal meridian, Cook county, 111., was in the city of Chicago for the use of schools. These lots are located on the west side of State street between Madison and Monroe streets. On the date mentioned, and at the time of the execution of the lease hereinafter mentioned, these lots were improved with a large and substantial business building. Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Legislature of the state of Illinois, the board of education of the city of Chicago on May 8, 1880, entered into a lease of these lots with one Thomas Mackin, demising and renting to him the land and building for a term of 50 years, the lease to expire May 7, 1930. A copy of this lease is attached to the petition as Exhibit A.

The rent reserved in this lease was $6,-624 per annum until 1885, • and thereafter the rent was to be 6 per cent, of the appraised value of the land exclusive of improvements, one such appraisal to be made, in the manner provided in the lease, in 1885 and one every 5 years thereafter until the end of the term. The lessee agreed to pay all water rates and taxes, if any, and the lessor retained the right to terminate the lease if these charges should remain unpaid for 30 days after notice. It was provided that the rent reserved was a first lien on the lessee’s interest in the lease and that the same might be sold if the rent remained unpaid for 30 days. The board of education also retained the right to terminate the lease in such event, or upon the breach of any other covenant. The lease was assignable if the lessee had fully performed the covenants to be kept by him and upon notice given to the board of education in writing.

The lease also provided: “That if, upon the expiration of this lease or of any renewal thereof, the party of the first part [233]*233shall determine to lease said lots to any other person than the party of the second part, * * * such lease shall only be made upon the condition that, before the delivery thereof, the proposed new lessee shall buy of the party of the second part [lessee], * * * the buildings then standing upon said lots, and pay therefor the value thereof as the same may be appraised by two disinterested appraisers, freeholders in said city; * * * Provided, however, that this covenant shall continue in effect only so long as the party of the second part, * * * on the expiration of this lease and of any renewal thereof, to take and accept a renewal thereof, upon the same terms and conditions, herein provided, for such further term as the party of the first part may determine upon. Provided the city of Chicago, upon the request of said parties of the first part, do not elect to sell the within described premises.” It was also provided that, if at such time the city, at the request of the board of education, should elect to sell the lots, the lessee should have the right to purchase the same at their appraised value, exclusive of improvements, and, if he should fail to do so, all interest of his therein should cease.

This lease was later modified or supplemented on four separate occasions. June 15, 1888, as a result of a dispute between the board of education and the lessee, Mack-in, the parties in settlement entered into a supplemental agreement modifying the original lease by extending the term thereof to May 8, 1985. The supplemental agreement is attached to the petition as Exhibit B. It provided that the 1885 appraisal of the land should stand as a basis for determining the annual ground rent to be paid until 1895 and that an appraisal should not be made except once in 10 years thereafter. The method of selecting the appraisers was altered and the method of making the appraisals of the land was further defined; a general provision that the lease could only be forfeited on 60 days’ notice was incorporated.

By reason of the death of Thomas Mackin and others who became interested in this lease, title to the leasehold descended to John J. Philbin, Jr., individually and as administrator of the estate of Alice Phil-bin, deceased, and as guardian of the estates of Alice M. Philbin and Mildred Philbm, minors. In those capacities. John J. Philbin, Jr., on March 28, 1898, entered into an agreement with the board of education modifying the original lease of May 8, 1880, and the 1888 supplement thereto, by which modification all provisions for appraisals of the land and for the determination of the rent reserved on the basis thereof were eliminated from the lease, and the rent reserved was fixed at specific amounts of $27,-000 per annum from May 8, 1898, to May 8, 1905; $28,350 from 1905 to May 8, 1915; $29,767.50 from 1915 to May 8, 1925; and $31,255.87 from 1925 to May 8, 1985. In addition, the lessee covenanted to erect improvements on the premises of a value of not less than $250,000, consisting of a new fireproof building, the plans and specifications to be approved by the board of education. This improvement was to be completed by the end of 5 years from April 30, 1898. The building was to remain the property of the lessee.

July 17, 1901, Philbin entered into another agreement with the board of education modifying the lease in question by extending the time for completion of the new building to 1905, reducing the agreed cost to $200,000, and confirming the fixed annual rental reserved.

Thereafter this lease to lots 4, 5, and 6 and the leasehold estate was assigned and conveyed May 22, 1902, to Louis M. Stumer, Benjamin J. Rosenthal, LaVerne W. Noyes, and the plaintiff, Louis Eckstein, as tenants in common, each taking a one-fourth interest therein. The cost of the lease to these assignees was $91,277.84.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bulczak v. Independent Pier Co.
17 F. Supp. 973 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1937)
Metropolitan Bldg. Co. v. United States
12 F. Supp. 537 (Court of Claims, 1935)
Helvering v. Atlas Life Ins.
78 F.2d 166 (Tenth Circuit, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 F. Supp. 231, 80 Ct. Cl. 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eckstein-v-united-states-cc-1935.