The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1885-01-30
sr. FRANCIS, COLLEGE TAX CASE.


The following is the opinion delivered by
Judge Sterrtft OF the Supreme Court, in IL
gard to The taxation OF St Francis College
OF Lnretto
Ii Is virtually conceded that the property
OF defendant corporation is subject to taxs-
ton IN Ike manner as that of individuals,
unless IL IS relieved therefrOm by viTtu= OF
the eighth article of its charter, granted by
the Court of Common Pras of Cambria
county, on july 22nd, 1855 That article
reads follows The Academy suall hold
tile buildings and grounds, necessary tor the
proper and reasonable use aud enjoy ment
thereof, free frJm taxation IN accordance
with the Act of the General Assembly Of
this Commonwealth, Tegu latine Ike institu-
uOnS 10 regard to taxation" The case stated
declares that the Academy, since its incor-
pJTatiOu, 'has been organized and main
Janrd Tor the instruction aud education of
youth, who may be sent there Tor that puT-
pose by their parents OF guardians, and reg
ular tets or charges tor tuitIun have been
collected from said parents. guardians or pu-
pills, by the officers OF said Academy" 1t is
thus conceded that it is not an institution or
learning, founded, endowed ami maintain
ed by public or private charity ;" nor, can it
claim to belong to either Of the classes emu
merated in tile Exemption Act of May II,
1874. PurG. 1857 pl. 2. If it were not for
the article above quoted. the case would be
clearly within the principles affirmed in The
College vs.. The County of Mercer 3 Out.
$50, and kindred eases since the adoption of
no question as To defendants liability to tax
alton. The controlling question therefore,
il, what effect, II any, is 10 be given TO that
article Does it operate Es n contract, bind
ing on she Common wealth not to tax the
property OF the corporation or is u a mere
nuliity for want of power in the Court TO
grant or give effect to such an exemption?
In 1858, when the Academy was ncoTpOr-
ated, the several Courts OF Common Pleas
were authorized to grant charters of incur-
pOratiOn to citizens of the Commonwealth
associated nr Intending to associate for iii
eraTy, charitable, religious and other Speci-
hed purposes, subject to certain restrictions
and limitations Is to the amount of Income
to be enjoyed by such corporations, their
power to nold lands, etc; but, there is moth
ing in any of the acts relating TO the subject,
tnat empowered the Court either to impose
taxes or grant immunity therefTOm. The
taxing power of the Commonw wealth, subject
To certain constitutional restrictions, IS vest
ed exclusively in the General Assembly, and
has never been delegated to the Courts TO be
exercised by them in connection with the
granting OF charters. y 4, do we think the
Court OF Common Pleas, in approving the
article in question, Intended il should, pro
pr3O TegOre operate as an exemption act IL
such was the intention, the action of the
Court was clearly ultra Ctres. On the Other
hand, If IL was inserted in the charter, out
of abundance of caution, As merely decara-
tory of then existing legislation and its ef
feet on the defendant corporation, is en-
tITely harmless. Ia 1858, and tor maEY
years thereafter, a general law was IN force
exrmpting similar Institutions from taxa
tion. Construed in the light of that law. we
think the article is merely declaTatOry as
above stated. Its purpose was to declare
that defendant should enjoy the same i'm
munity from taxation that like Institutions
then enjoyed or might thereafter enjoy IN
der that or any other law that might be
passed on the subject in Ogher words, that
defendant should stand on the same footing
of equality with like Institutions in regard
to liability to, or exemption from taXatIOn ;
and that as long they were exempt from
taxation under the general law. Just as long
aHd to the same exteEt, should defendant
under and by virtue of the same law, enjoy
a similar immunity.
This appears to be the plain and natural
meaning OF Il e language employed. The
exemption is not declared TO be absolute and
. independent of then existing legislation
but, in the words OF the article, in accord
ance with the Act of Assembly regulating
like institutions in regard to taxation
We are therefore OF opinion that the char
ter CONTAINS no provision in the nature of q
contract binding on the Com N on wea Ith, not
to tax the property of the corporation that
II II did contain any such provision, it would
be mere nullity for want of power in the
Court to graut or give effect to any such ex-
emnton.
Judgment reversed, and judgment is now
entered ID favor of the piaIEtitf, on the case
stated for sixty dollars and costs.