Inhabitants of Harrison v. Inhabitants of Bridgeton

16 Mass. 16
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided July 1, 1819·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

We think it very clear that the fund, of which [15] the plaintiffs in this action claim their proportion, is not included within the term property, as used in the act incorporating the town of Harrison. It cannot be considered as town’s property, and could not be disposed of by a vote of the town ; but partaking of the character of the land, from the sale of which it grew, it is a permanent fund appropriated by law for the support of the ministry, and cannot be lawfully applied to any other use. Suppose one or more new parishes should be incorporated in Bridgeton; the land, in such case, if it had not been sold, would belong to the first parish; and so it must be with the proceeds of the land; for the sale under the authority of the legislature did not change the use of the property, but merely converted into money what before existed in land.

* The property, to be divided between the towns, was [ * 18 J that which had been acquired by the money of the town, and which belonged to it in its municipal character. The ministerial land belonged to it quasi a parish, and is to be appropriated only to parochial uses.

It should be considered that the liability of Bridgeton to support a minister is not removed by the separation of a part of the territory into a new town, although the amount of taxable property may be thereby much reduced. It would be hard indeed, if, by a voluntary secession of a part of a town, in addition to the increased burden, the property which the original grantor had destined to aid in the support of a minister, should be taken away; nor can we think that the legislature so intended in the case before us

Footnotes

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

Inhabitants of Harrison v. Inhabitants of Bridgeton, 16 Mass. 16 (Mass. 1819).

16 Mass. 16 (Inhabitants of Harrison v. Inhabitants of Bridgeton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Graham v. Township of Edison
173 A.2d 403 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1961)
State v. Mullen
54 A. 841 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1903)
Mayor of Newark v. Stockton
44 N.J. Eq. 179 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1888)
City of Brownsville v. Basse & Hord
36 Tex. 461 (Texas Supreme Court, 1872)
Town of Milwaukee v. City of Milwaukee
12 Wis. 93 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1860)
Town of Montpelier v. Town of East Montpelier
29 Vt. 12 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1856)
Cammeyer v. Corporation of United German Lutheran Churches
2 Sand. Ch. 186 (New York Court of Chancery, 1844)
Richardson v. Brown
6 Me. 355 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1830)
Inhabitants of Porter v. Griswold
6 Me. 430 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1830)
Union Baptist Society v. Town of Candia
2 N.H. 20 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1819)
Brown v. Porter
10 Mass. 93 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)