State v. Ross

24 N.J.L. 497
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJune 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 24 N.J.L. 497 (State v. Ross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Ross, 24 N.J.L. 497 (N.J. 1854).

Opinion

Haines, J.

The certiorari in this case brings up the - assessments of taxes made by the assessor of the township' of Princeton, upon certain property belonging to the trustees of the College of New Jersey, for the year 1852.

By the return, it appears that the trustees were assessed5 for the dwelling houses and grounds occupied by the presi- ■ dent and vice-president of the college, and by the professors ■ and steward; and also for the property known as e‘ Edge-hill,” occupied as a grammar school by an individual, at an annual rent. The buildings occupied by the students, the ■ halls of the literary societies, the chapel, library, philosophical halls, and campus are included in the assessment.

By the second section of the act of 14th March, 1851, which is a supplement to “ an act concerning taxes,” all lands • and all personal estate within this state, whether owned by individuals or by corporations, are made liable to taxation, subject to the exemptions therein specified. This property, -therefore, was lawfully taxed, unless it be fairly within the exemption clause.

The second paragraph of the 5th section mentions, among the property exempted, “ all colleges, academies or seminaries of learning, and all buildings erected and used for religious purposes, the lands whereupon the same are erected, the furniture thereof, and the personal property used therein.”

The term college, as here used, is not to be taken in its general sense, and as signifying an assemblage of persons for any political or ecclesiastical purpose; but in its more [499]*499usual acceptation, a college of learning. Nor in that sense, does it mean the assemblage of the professors and students; nor yet the trustees in their corporafe capacity; but certain, property belonging to them, edifices and the lands whereon the same are erected.

The question then arises — What buildings and lands are-included in that term ?

If it be limited to such buildings as are indispensable to a seminary of learning, their dormitories and refectories must be excluded, for they are not essential, and we know of one in our state, which is in successful operation, without; either. If the term be not confined to the mere lecture or recitation room, then it must be so construed, as intended to include every thing necessary to the proper management of the institution, according to the plan and principles on; which it was originally founded, or by authority subsequently adopted.

The charter of the college was granted by George II., og the 14th September, 1748, on the petition of “ sundry well disposed and public spirited persons,” in which they expressed their earnest desire, “that a college might be erected in the province of New Jersey, for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof and others, wherein youth might be instructed in the learned languages, and in the liberal arts and sciences,” and “ those of every religious denomination might have free and equal liberty, and advantages of education “ any different sentiments of religion notwithstanding.” For such puiposos the persons therein mentioned, and their successors were incorporated, by the name of “ The Trustees', of the College of New Jerseyand they were authorized to acquire, receive and possess lands, and to purchase, receive or build any house or houses, or any other buildings, as they should think needful or convenient for the use of the said college, and in such place or places as they, the said trustees should agree upon,” “ so, nevertheless, that the clear yearly value of the premises should not exceed the sum of two thousand pounds sterling.”

[500]*500. By the act of the Legislature of 27th May, 1790, (Pamph. Laws, 383,) this charter, with certain modifications, but chiefly such as became necessary, by reason of the change of the state government, was ratified and confirmed to the trustees and their successors, with all the advantages, privileges and immunities thereby granted; and they were authorized to hold any estate whatsoever, the clear yearly value whereof should not exceed twenty thousand dollars.

’' Under this charter, thus confirmed, the trustees purchased real estate at Princeton, and deemed it both “ needful and convenient” for the use of the college to purchase or build not only the dormitories and apartments for the students, recitation rooms, and refectory, but also dwelling houses for the president, professors and students. Their plan was id board and lodge, as well as to instruct the students, and •as convenient to that purpose, and needful, as well for economy as the proper government of the institution, to provide places of residences for their president, professors, steward and servants. The charter authorized the appointment of tutors and professors to assist the president in the education and government of the students.

Government was regarded as co-ordinate with education, and indispensable alike to the success of the enterprise, to the prosperity of the institution, and to the welfare of the youth. To enable the officers to exercise the proper discipline, it was necessary that they should dwell in the proximity of the students; and be provided with apartments cither in the same buildings with them, or in dwelling houses adjacent.

It was neither agreeable nor proper that the president and professors, with their families, should be required to dwell in the same buildings with the students; and therefore the trustees deemed it 11 needful and convenient” to provide separate houses for them; and for like reasons-, the steward, as an officer necessary to the boarding department, was furnished with a dwelling house for himself and family.

This plan [of conducting the college had been adopted long before, and was in full operation at the time of the [501]*501passage of the act under which the tax in question was assessed; and it is presumed to have been known to the legislature, and these are their views.

They regarded the colleges of the state and seminaries of learning, as institutions “ founded for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof,” and as the means of promoting their prosperity and happiness, and so entitled to be exempted from the burden of taxation.

It was the policy of the state, and the intention of the legislature, to treat them with liberality, and in using the term college, they meant the institutions established in accordance with the terms of their respective charters, fairly and liberally construed.

The providing of these dwelling houses was clearly within the scope of the authority given by the charter, and they are to be taken as a part of the college, and together with the lands whereon they are erected, must be considered to be within the exemptions of the act.

The land attached to the houses constitutes but little more than the curtilage, and if .not absolutely necessary to the enjoyment, it was by the trustees deemed to be “ convenient” and appropriate.

This construction is not changed by the fact that the the buildings in question were upon lots enclosed by substantial fences, and some of them separated by those fences, and others by a lane and public street from the other college grounds. The charter does not require that these lands should be in one enclosure or in one place even, but it expressly allows them to be in such place or places in New Jersey as the trustees should agree upon.

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

Related

Stoddard v. Rutgers
24 N.J. Tax 187 (New Jersey Tax Court, 2008)
Pingry Corp. v. Hillside Tp.
207 A.2d 194 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1965)
Princeton Twp. v. Institute for Advanced Study
157 A.2d 136 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1960)
Congregation B'Nai Yisroel v. Millburn Tp.
113 A.2d 182 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)
TP. OF TEANECK v. Lutheran Bible Institute
112 A.2d 745 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 N.J.L. 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ross-nj-1854.