Bates v. Inhabitants of Sharon

Assessment of Tax — Remedy — Petition for Abatement— Charitable Institution. If a part of a tax assessed to a person upon his real estate is valid, although for the balance of the real estate assessed to him he is not taxable, the remedy is by petition for abatement and not by contract for money had and received. A life tenant may be taxed as the owner of land under Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 13. Real estate, occupied by a charitable institution for the purpose for which it was incorporated but owned by a third person, is not exempt from taxation.

Contract for money had and received. Trial in the Superior Court before Braley, J., who reported the case for the consideration of this court in substance as follows. On April 23, 1894, the plaintiff made and executed to the Ella Reed Home, a charitable corporation duly established under the laws of this Commonwealth, a deed of certain land with the buildings thereon situated in Sharon, which deed just preceding the habendum clause contained this language,-—-“being the same premises conveyed to me by Samuel B. Thing, lib. 655, fol. 319, and being hereby conveyed subject to the reservations herein contained or referred to. The said Cynthia Bates, as part of the consideration of this deed, reserves the right to use, occupy and improve the dwelling house on said premises free of any rent or charge for taxes or otherwise during the term of her natural life.” On the land on May 1, 1896, and on May 1,1897, were a ■ house, an unfinished barn, a new house and two hen-houses. On May 1, 1896, the assessors assessed the Ella Reed Home for the real estate and buildings. Subsequently, the taxes having been found to be invalid by reason of error in their assessment,, on July 25, 1898, they were re-assessed to the plaintiff Cynthia Bates, “ to whom said tax ought at first to have been assessed for her interest therein.” Ho application was made to the assessors by the plaintiff for an abatement of the taxes after they were assessed to her. On October 18, 1898, the plaintiff paid to the collector of taxes under written protest the sum of $227.59, being in full for taxes assessed her for the years 1896 and 1897 and costs and charges on the same. On May 1, 1896, and May 1,1897, the plaintiff was in possession of and occupied the dwelling-house. She testified that she was there as president of the “ Ella Reed Home.” This fact at the time of the assessment of the taxes was not known to the assessors. The plaintiff asked the judge to rule that under the language in the deed she did not take a life estate but simply had a “ license or easement ” to occupy the dwelling-house. Secondly, that if she had a life estate then she could be assessed only for her interest in the dwelling-house and not for the other buildings or land outside of it; and might under the evidence recover back in this action the excess paid. The judge refused to rule as requested and found and ordered judgment for the defendant. If the first ruling requested should have been given, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $227.59 with interest from the date of the writ. If the first ruling requested should not have been given and the second ruling requested should have been given, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $112 with interest from the date of the writ; otherwise the judgment was to be affirmed.