242 Mass. 553 | Mass. | 1922
This is a petition brought under St. 1909, c. 490, Part I, § 77, for an abatement of taxes assessed upon the property of the petitioner by the assessors of the town of Lancaster for the year 1918. Before the petition was brought all necessary preliminary steps had been taken by the petitioner and the only issue between the parties is whether the property is exempt in whole or in part from taxation, and if exempt in part, to what extent.
The petitioner contends that it is a literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institution, that the only real estate owned or occupied by it or its officers in the year 1918 was so owned and occupied for the purposes for which it was incorporated, and that it is therefore exempt from taxation under St. 1909, c. 490, Part I, § 5, cl. 3. The respondent contends that the petitioner is a religious institution and that its property is subject to taxation.
The case was referred to a commissioner appointed under Part I, § 79, of the statute. In a report containing many findings of fact, the commissioner concludes as follows: “On the foregoing facts and all the evidence I find that the school is maintained by the Seventh Day Adventists as one of their effective agencies in carrying out their general plan of fostering and spreading their religion, and, while they teach literary and scientific courses at the school as above set forth, that their dominant purpose in maintaining said school is religious, and that, in so far as it is a question of fact, the school is a religious institution.”
The case was afterwards heard by a judge of the Superior Court on the report of the commissioner together with further evidence; he found the facts to be as set out in the report with the exception that, upon the evidence the petitioner is a literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institution; that the purchase of the Blood, Burke and Langen lots was for the purposes of the school; and that their use, so far as any income is concerned, is incidental thereto. A decree was ordered declaring the petitioner entitled to the abatement sought.
The statute, § 79, provides that the report of the commissioner shall be prima facie evidence of the facts found by him. Such findings stand upon the same footing as the findings of an auditor, G. L. c. 221, § 56, and are entitled to the same weight and probative effect. Prima facie evidence is defined “to be evidence
The commissioner’s report makes out a prima fade case and the findings must stand unless either in the report or outside of it there is evidence to control them. Anderson v. Metropolitan Stock Exchange, 191 Mass. 117, 121. Fisher v. Doe, 204 Mass. 34, 40. Wakefield v. American Surety Co. of New York, 209 Mass. 173, 176. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Fred T. Ley & Co. Inc. 238 Mass. 113, 117. It is well settled, however, that the general finding of an auditor may be controlled by the particular facts and findings reported by him if the court or jury think a different inference ought to be drawn from them. The judge was not obliged as matter of law to find for the respondent in the case at bar; he was not required to adopt the conclusions of the commissioner; but on the facts stated in the report he was entitled to consider them, draw the proper inferences therefrom, and reach such conclusions as they would warrant. Emerson v. Patch, 129 Mass. 299. Peaslee v. Ross, 143 Mass. 275. Livingston v. Hammond, 162 Mass. 375. Wirth v. Kuehn, 191 Mass. 51, 53. Druggists Circular, Inc. v. American Soda Fountain Co. 240 Mass. 531.
On the facts found by the commissioner it appears that on April 1, 1918, the petitioner owned a tract of land in Lancaster, where it conducted a school; that there were buildings thereon appropriate for the school including an academy building, dormitories, a cottage, a barn and other buildings; that about one hundred and thirty-five acres of the land were used as a farm except that the Kennedy lot, so called, of about fifty acres, was taken and used by the federal government as a prisoners’ camp, under a lease from the petitioner, for which rent was paid; that of the remaining eighty-five acres, fifteen were pasturage, and about seventy were tillage and used for the raising of vegetables and hay; that the Kennedy, Burke, Langen and Blood lots owned by the petitioner were included in the one hundred and thirty-five acres; that in the year 1918 vegetables were raised, and were consumed by the students and others living at the school except about one hundred bushels of potatoes, which were sold, and some other
Without further reciting in detail the many particular and subsidiary findings we are of opinion that, considering them as a whole, they were susceptible of more than one conclusion upon the question whether the academy was a religious, or a literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institution.
The judge of the Superior Court was not bound, either upon the subsidiary findings of the commissioner or the additional evidence submitted to him, to find that it is a religious institution. He was warranted in holding that, while one of the purposes of the petitioner’s incorporation is that of religious teaching, yet that its paramount and dominant purpose is the education of boys and girls to prepare them for a business or calling that they may become useful and valuable members of society; and that the academy is a literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institution. Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 599. Mount Herman Boys’ School v. Gill, 145 Mass. 139. Thayer Academy v. Braintree, 232 Mass. 402.
The circumstance that Bible teaching and religious instruction, are made a prominent feature in the course of study does not make the academy any less an educational institution; nor does the fact that it is a denominational school prevent a finding that, it is exempt from taxation under the statute. Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, supra. The provision of the statute under which exemption is claimed provides that the property shall not be exempt from taxation “if any of the income or profits . . . is used.
The finding of the judge that the purchase of the Blood, Burke and Langen lots was for the purposes of the school was fully warranted.
The principal of the school occupied five rooms in a cottage on the grounds of the institution near the main hall. The rest of the house was used for students to room in. A portion of the principal’s apartment was used as his office, and a monthly deduction of $17 from his salary was made. Upon these facts the commissioner found that he occupied the apartment as a private residence. The principal was required to live in the cottage to be in proximity to the students; there was evidence that $17 a month did not more than pay for heating and lighting the rooms; it could have been found that such deduction did not amount to the paying of rent and that no actual revenue as rent was received; besides it could also have been found that the occupation of this cottage by the principal was essential to the orderly and efficient management of the school, and was so occupied by an officer of the petitioner in order to carry into effect the purposes for which the academy was incorporated. Phillips Academy v. Andover, 175 Mass. 118. Upon such a finding the cottage was exempt from taxation. Thayer Academy v. Braintree, supra, at page 408. The facts in the
The exceptions to the denial of the motions for judgment for the respondent, made before and after the evidence submitted to the judge was concluded, must be overruled.
So ordered.