Case ID: mass_12/html/0295-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Parker, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Paul Ruggles versus James Kimball.
    An ordained minister, not settled in any particular parish, is not exempted from taxes by the statute of 1811, c. 6.
    Trespass for taking and carrying away two cows, one bull, one steer, and one horse, the property of the plaintiff.
    The action was submitted to the decision of the Court upon certain facts agreed, to the following effect.
    The defendant took the said chattels, as collector of taxes for the town of Carmel, by virtue of a warrant from the assessors of saie town ; and, if the plaintiff and his property were by law liable to taxation, it was agreed that the sums, collected by the sale of the saie chattels, did not exceed his legal proportion, that the money, for which the said tax was assessed, was legally voted by the town, that the assessment was regularly made by the assessors, that the defendant had a warrant from them to collect the tax, and that he was legally chosen collector by the said town.
    The plaintiff was, in the year 1810, ordained a Baptist elder or evangelist, according to the usual Baptist form ; and he had, from that time, on Sundays and other occasions, continued * the practice of preaching at several places, but not con- [ *3381 stantly in any one place.
    If, in the opinion of the Court, upon the facts stated, the plaintiff and his estate in Carmel were by law exempted from taxation, the defendant agreed to be defaulted, and that the plaintiff should have judgment for his damages and costs ; otherwise, the plaintiff agreed to become nonsnit, and that the defendant should recover his costs
    
      
      Brown, for the plaintiff.
    
      Gilman, for the defendant.
   Parker, C. J.

[After stating the action and the facts agreed by the parties.] The defendant claims an exemption from taxation, because he is an ordained minister of the gospel, under the fourth section of the statute of 1811, c. 6, which provides, “ that all ministers, ordained agreeably to the usages of the sect or denomination to which they severally belong, whether over corporate or unincorporate society or societies within this Commonwealth, shall have the same exemptions from taxation, as are given to stated, ordained ministers of the gospel in the town, district, parish, or plantation, where they are settled, subject, however, to the same restrictions and penalties.”

By the general tax act, rninisters of the gospel shall not be assessed for their polls, or their estates under their personal management, in the towns, districts, or parishes where they are settled.

The act, upon which the plaintiff relies, had, for its object, the granting of the same indulgence to ministers ordained over societies not incorporated, which was before enjoyed by ministers of incorporated societies ; and this seems to be its only object.

It is equally necessary, under both acts, that a minister, claiming this exemption, should be a settled minister, that is, that he should be ordained over some particular society, either incorp.orated or unincorporated, who shall be entitled to bis services, and obligated to him for his support in some form or other. The plaintiff in [*339] this action was not so ordained, * but was merely authorized to preach, whenever he should see fit, having no fixed place or society over which he could be considered to be settled, and not being bound to perform the duties of a minister anywhere. The first section of the statute of 1811 clearly shows the intention of the legislature to have been to put ministers of unincorporated and incorporated societies upon the same footing ; for it would be absurd to suppose the right of receiving taxes to be given to a minister who had no place of settlement.

It is impossible to consider the plaintiff entitled to a privilege which is given as much for the benefit of those societies who incur the charge of a settled minister as for the benefit of the minister himself, as this exemption necessarily enters into the computation of the sum which may be fixed as a compensation to the minister.

A minister, ordained at large, but afterwards becoming settled over a particular society unincorporated, would come within the words and meaning of the statute. But, without such settlement, it is clear he was not intended to be privileged by the legislature in this way.

Plaintiff nonsuit.