Case Name: The Inhabitants of Harrison versus the Inhabitants of Bridgeton
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1819
Citations: 15 Tyng 16
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Inhabitants of Harrison versus the Inhabitants of Bridgeton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 13–15

Head Matter:
The Inhabitants of Harrison versus the Inhabitants of Bridgeton.
A new town, created partly from the town of B., was, by its incorporation, entitled to a proportion of all the property, rights and credits of B.: but it was holderi that such new town was not therefore entitled to any part of a fund arising from the sale of land originally appropriated to the use of the ministry in the town of B
This action, which was assumpsit for money had and received, was submitted to the determination of the Court upon the following facts agreed by the parties.
By the terms of the original grant of the township of Bridgeton in the year 1765, one sixty-fourth part of the land granted was required to be appropriated for the support of schools, and a like proportion for the use of the ministry, and they were laid out by the proprietors accordingly. In 1789, a minister was settled in the town, who entered on the land appropriated for the ministry, and occupied it until the year 1798, when he released his right to the town, and also his right to a certain annual supply of fuel; in consideration of which an addition of forty dollars was made to his annual salary, which has ever since been duly paid.—In 1800, pursuant to the petition of the minister and of the inhabitants to the legislature, permission was given to sell and dispose of the land reserved for the use of the ministry; the net proceeds of the sale to be vested in a fund, and the interest arising thereon to be forever applied to the support of the ministry in said town.—The land was accordingly sold, and the moneys arising therefrom funded by a trustee appointed by the town.
In the year 1805, the town of Harrison was incorporated, and was composed of part of the towns of Bridgeton and Otis- [ * 17 ] field. By the act of incorporation it was provided * “ that the town of Harrison should pay all arrears of taxes which had been assessed on them, together with their proportion of all debts, which might be due and owing by either of said towns of' Otisfield and Bridgeton, prior to the date of the act; and that all property, rights and credits of said towns of Otisfield and Bridge-ton should be received and enjoyed by said town of Harrison, according to their proportion of the taxes of the said towns, as assessed in the last tax bills.”—The defendants had adjusted and paid to the plaintiffs their proportion of all moneys due to or claimed by them, except their share of the fund herein before stated ; which was demanded and refused.—Neither of said towns has been specially incorporated as a parish ; and no parish has ever been created within the town of Bridgeton.
Upon these facts it was agreed that, if the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover in any form of action, judgment should be rendered for them upon the default of the defendants, for a sum agreed; otherwise the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.
Emery and Longfellow, for the plaintiffs.
Mellen and Fessenden, for the defendants.

Opinion:
By the Court.
We think it very clear that the fund, of which the plaintiffs in this action claim their proportion, is not included within the term property, as used in the act incorporating the town of Harrison. It cannot be considered as town's property, and could not be disposed of by a vote of the town ; but partaking of the character of the land, from the sale of which it grew, it is a permanent fund appropriated by law for the support of the ministry, and cannot be lawfully applied to any other use. Suppose one or more new parishes should be incorporated in Bridgeton; the land, in such case, if it had not been sold, would belong to the first parish; and so it must be with the proceeds of the land; for the sale under the authority of the legislature did not change the use of the property, but merely converted into money what before existed in land.
* The property, to be divided between the towns, was [ * 18 J that which had been acquired by the money of the town, and which belonged to it in its municipal character. The ministerial land belonged to it quasi a parish, and is to be appropriated only to parochial uses.
It should be considered that the liability of Bridgeton to support a minister is not removed by the separation of a part of the territory into a new town, although the amount of taxable property may be thereby much reduced. It would be hard indeed, if, by a voluntary secession of a part of a town, in addition to the increased burden, the property which the original grantor had destined to aid in the support of a minister, should be taken away; nor can we think that the legislature so intended in the case before us .
Plaintiffs nonsuit
[Brown vs. Porter, 10 Mass. 93. —Jewett vs. Burrough, 15 Mass. R. 464. —Austin vs. Thomas, 14 Mass. 333. —Shapleigh vs. Gilman, 13 Mass. R. 190. —Dillingham vs. Snow, 3 Mass. R. 276. 5 Mass. 547. -Medford vs. Pratt, 4 Pick. 222. —Brunswick vs. Dunning & Al., 7 Mass. 445. —Baker vs. Fales, post, 488. —Eager vs. Marlborough 10 Mass. 430. —Milford vs. Godfrey, 1 Pick. 91. —Ed.]