Proprietors of South Congregational Meetinghouse v. City of Lowell

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Proprietors of South Congregational Meetinghouse v. City of Lowell

42 Mass. 538

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1840

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 Mass. 538 (Proprietors of South Congregational Meetinghouse v. City of Lowell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Proprietors of South Congregational Meetinghouse v. City of Lowell, 42 Mass. 538 (Mass. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw, C. J.

The plaintiffs claim exemption from taxation for general purposes, under the Rev. Sts. c. 7, § 5, clause 5th. That section classifies the persons and property exempted from taxation, and the clause in question is as follows : “ All houses of religious worship, and the pews and furniture within the same.”

In the first place, it is to be remarked that the plaintiffs are not a religious society ; but they were specially incorporated for the purpose of purchasing a site for a meetinghouse, and erecting one. This they have done, and have disposed, in the form of pews, of all that part of the buildings actually used as a place of worship and for a vestry, in the upper stories of the buildings, to a religious society separate!) organized. But the plain[541]*541tiffs retain six tenements, being the story under the church and vestry, which are let as stores, and of which they take the income, appropriating it to reduce the sum of money borrowed for building the houses.

Such being the nature of the property, the court are of opinion that the exemption in the statute extended to that part of the property only which was used as a place of worship, and for purposes connected with it; such as the vestry, the furnace and thy like ; but did not extend to separate tenements used for purposes exclusively secular. The income raised from these tenements goes as directly to the use of the proprietors, by paying their debts, as if they made annual dividends.

There may be several distinct tenements under the same roof; and tenements are as essentially distinct, when one is under the other, as when one is by the side of the other. Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575. Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Connect 318.

The court are of opinion that the denomination of “houses of religious worship ” must be held to include such distinct tenements as are used for that purpose, and for purposes connected with it, and does not include distinct tenements used for other purposes, though under the same roof.

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

Shaw, C. J.

The plaintiffs claim exemption from taxation for general purposes, under the Rev. Sts. c. 7, § 5, clause 5th. That section classifies the persons and property exempted from taxation, and the clause in question is as follows : “ All houses of religious worship, and the pews and furniture within the same.”

In the first place, it is to be remarked that the plaintiffs are not a religious society ; but they were specially incorporated for the purpose of purchasing a site for a meetinghouse, and erecting one. This they have done, and have disposed, in the form of pews, of all that part of the buildings actually used as a place of worship and for a vestry, in the upper stories of the buildings, to a religious society separate!) organized. But the plain[541]*541tiffs retain six tenements, being the story under the church and vestry, which are let as stores, and of which they take the income, appropriating it to reduce the sum of money borrowed for building the houses.

Such being the nature of the property, the court are of opinion that the exemption in the statute extended to that part of the property only which was used as a place of worship, and for purposes connected with it; such as the vestry, the furnace and thy like ; but did not extend to separate tenements used for purposes exclusively secular. The income raised from these tenements goes as directly to the use of the proprietors, by paying their debts, as if they made annual dividends.

There may be several distinct tenements under the same roof; and tenements are as essentially distinct, when one is under the other, as when one is by the side of the other. Loring v. Bacon, 4 Mass. 575. Cheeseborough v. Green, 10 Connect 318.

The court are of opinion that the denomination of “houses of religious worship ” must be held to include such distinct tenements as are used for that purpose, and for purposes connected with it, and does not include distinct tenements used for other purposes, though under the same roof.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Mass. 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proprietors-of-south-congregational-meetinghouse-v-city-of-lowell-mass-1840.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack