{ "id": 5638385, "name": "The People ex rel. John R. Thompson, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The First Congregational Church of Oak Park, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "People ex rel. Thompson v. First Congregational Church", "decision_date": "1907-12-17", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "158", "last_page": "165", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "232 Ill. 158" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "119 Ky. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 4447921 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ky/119/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 U. S. 134", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "91 Tenn. 574", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "case_ids": [ 8538707 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/tenn/91/0574-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Minn. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 758249 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/45/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 Ill. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5537489 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "243" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/174/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ill. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5244019 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/26/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Iowa, 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2332926 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/46/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 Mass. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2139805 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/99/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 Ill. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2930022 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/124/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3336071 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/223/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Ill. 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3327534 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/226/0619-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2782638 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/106/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Kan. 214", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 598374 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/10/0214-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 Minn. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 758249 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/45/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Iowa, 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2332926 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/46/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 Ill. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2782638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/106/0398-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 640, "char_count": 14221, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.299110035400274e-07, "percentile": 0.9166596199237871 }, "sha256": "4de05b351e62448ecf46e481fd78ae19ab2d8b27c95f4e076f1efd00ea692674", "simhash": "1:5df401a61704e0ed", "word_count": 2371 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:03.827578+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "The People ex rel. John R. Thompson, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The First Congregational Church of Oak Park, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nSection 1 of article 9 of our constitution requires that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property. Section 3 of the same article provides that \u201cthe property of the State, counties, and other municipal corporations, both real and personal, and such other property as may be used exclusively for agricultural and horticultural societies, for school, religious, cemetery and charitable purposes, may be exempted from taxation; but such exemption shall be only by general law.\u201d\nIn 1905 the legislature amended section 2 of the Revenue act, which provides for the exemption of certain property from taxation. The second clause of that section as so amended reads as follows:\n\u201cSecond\u2014All church property actually and exclusively used for public worship and all parsonages or residences actually and exclusively used by persons devoting their entire time to church work, when the said buildings and the land on which said buildings are located (said land to be of reasonable size for the location of said buildings) are owned by the congregation or the church authorities and not used for pecuniary profit.\u201d\nThe contention of the appellant is, that by virtue of this statute the parsonage in question is exempt from taxation. .Appellee insists, however, that the clause above quoted is unconstitutional in so far as it applies to property other than \u201cchurch property actually and exclusively used for public worship,\u201d on the ground that such other property specified in that clause is not property used exclusively for religious purposes within, the meaning of the constitution.\nAppellant regards the case of Monticello Female Seminary v. People, 106 Ill. 398, as necessitating \u00e1 determination of the question of constitutionality in its favor. That seminary was a boarding school for young ladies, the scholars and teachers residing within and upon the grounds of the institution, numbering about 175 persons. In addition to the tract of land upon which the seminary buildings were located the institution owned three adjoining tracts, which were used, in part, for a garden to supply the institution with vegetables; a part was an orchard, from which fruit for the institution was obtained; a part was used for raising corn, oats and hay to feed the necessary live stock 'used in connection with the school; a part for pasture for cows used to supply the institution with milk, and a part was woodland, from which wood for fuel was obtained. Upon another part there was a building occupied by the superintendent of the grounds and out-door work of the seminary, which building was also occupied, when necessary, by scholars of the institution, and this particular tract was laid out in walks, avenues and lawns for the use and benefit of those attending the school. These tracts were used for no other purposes than those above enumerated and none of the produce of the land was ever sold. This court held these tracts so used to be exempt, for the reason that they were used exclusively for school purposes within the meaning of the constitutional provision above quoted. We do not think that case decisive. The term \u201cschool purposes\u201d is one of much broader significance when used with reference to an \u201cinstitution of learning\u201d such as Monticello Seminary, than the term \u201creligious purposes\u201d when used with reference to a church organization. Appellant, in our judgment, erroneously regards \u201cchurch purposes\u201d as being identical with \u201creligious purposes.\u201d While the property held exempt in the case referred to was properly said to .be used for school purposes, it could scarcely be contended that it was used for educational purposes in the ordinary acceptation of the latter term. So a church organization may own property which is used for church purposes but which is not used for religious purposes. The parsonage in this case was used as a home for the pastor and the members of his immediate family. So far as appears from this record, it was used as a family residence and nothing more. As suggested in the Kansas case referred to below, there seems to be no ground upon which it can be successfully contended that it was used for a religious purpose any more than was the residence of any other Christian gentleman who was a member of the same church. No doubt the pastor, in the performance of his duties, necessarily requires a place for meditation, study and prayer; but ordinary living rooms, used in common by all members of his household, would seem not well adapted for such purposes. Whether a room or building used exclusively by the pastor for a study and in which to perform pastoral functions other than conducting religious exercises, with the grounds by it occupied, can be exempted from taxation under our constitution is not to be determined in this case. The church might provide a residence upon real estate owned by it for its choir-master or sexton. We presume it would not be seriously contended that the property used by either of these persons as a residence is used exclusively for religious purposes, yet the statute under consideration is broad enough to include such a residence. Upon reason, the conclusion that the property involved in this suit is used primarily for a secular or temporal purpose, and not exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of our constitution, seems irresistible.\nAuthorities without the State are not unanimous and have been of little assistance in reaching a decision, from the fact that the constitutional and statutory provisions of other States are usually materially different from our own. The constitutional provision most common is one which empowers the legislature to exempt property used exclusively for \u201cpublic worship,\u201d and the second clause of the second section of our Revenue act, as originally enacted in 1872, extended only to such property. Cases arising under such constitutions and statutes afford no guide here, as the term \u201cpublic worship\u201d is less comprehensive than the language of our constitution.\nAppellant, on the other hand, presses upon our attention the case of Griswold College v. State, 46 Iowa, 275, which involved the construction of a statute exempting from taxation \u201call public libraries, grounds and buildings of literary, scientific, benevolent, agricultural and religious institutions and societies devoted solely to the appropriate objects of these institutions, not exceeding six hundred and forty acres in extent and not leased or otherwise used with a view of pecuniary profit.\u201d It is to be observed that there the property of religious institutions devoted solely to appropriate objects of those institutions was exempted. There can be no doubt that a parsonage, even though not used for a religious purpose, is property devoted to an appropriate object of a religious institution, viz., furnishing a residence for the pastor as a part of his compensation.\nThe case of Vail v. Beach, 10 Kan. 214, is more nearly in point. There a self-executing provision of the constitution of the State of Kansas exempted property \u201cused exclusively for religious purposes,\u201d and the question for determination was whether the parsonage occupied by the pastor of the church was exempt by reason of that provision. The court determined that the property was used the same as any other dwelling, and that such use was not distinguishable from the use of the dwelling occupied by any other member of the same church, and that it was clearly not the purpose of the constitution to relieve such property from taxation.\nIn County of Ramsey v. Church of Good Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229, it was said that a parsonage occupied by the pastor as a residence was used'for a secular and not for a religious purpose. o\nWhere a building is used primarily for religious purposes and secondarily for some secular purpose, as for the business meetings of the church corporation, or if there should be in the church building some room used as a lodging room for the sexton or some other person employed by the organization, the building would not thereby lose its character as one used for religious purposes, but where the property is used primarily for a family residence by the pastor it cannot be held that it is used exclusively for religious purposes. The legislature cannot, by its enactment, make that a religious purpose which in fact is not a religious purpose.\nWe therefore hold that the second clause of section 2, supra, as above set out and as enacted in 1905, is not within the power conferred upon the legislature by section 3 of article 9 of the constitution of the State, and that said clause violates section 1 of article 9 of that constitution, and is for that reason null and void, in so far as that clause applies to church property not actually and exclusively used for public worship.\nThe judgment of the county court will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed,\nFarmer, Vickers and Carter, JJ., dissenting.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Scott" } ], "attorneys": [ "Pearson & Herrick, for appellant:", "Lyman, Lyman & O\u2019Connor, for appellant on rehearing.", "Harry A. Lewis, and William F. Struckmann, for appellee:" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "The People ex rel. John R. Thompson, County Collector, Appellee, vs. The First Congregational Church of Oak Park, Appellant.\nOpinion filed December 17, 1907\nRehearing denied Feb. 7, 1908.\n1. Constitutional law\u2014legislature cannot exempt from taxation church property not used for religious purposes. Section 3 of article 9 of the constitution, which exempts from taxation property used exclusively for religious purposes, precludes the' legislature from exempting from taxation church property devoted to a purpose which is not, in fact, a religious purpose.\n2. Same\u2014act of 1905, exempting parsonages from taxation, is unconstitutional. The provision of section 2 of the Revenue act as amended in 1905, (Laws of 1905, p. 357,) exempting from taxation all parsonages or residences actually and exclusively used by persons devoting their whole time to church work, is unconstitutional, since a building used primarily as a residence is used for a secular and not for a religious purpose. (Monticello Female Seminary v. People, 106 Ill. 398, distinguished.)\nFarmer, Vickers and Carter, JJ., dissenting.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. John B. Vaughn, Judge, presiding.\nOn July 8, 1907, the county collector of Cook county made application to the county court of that county for a judgment against certain real estate located in said county, owned by the First Congregational Church of Oak Park, for unpaid taxes for the year 1906. Objections filed to the application by the church, based on the theory that the property was exempt from taxation, were overruled and judgment was entered for the amount of taxes claimed. From that judgment the objector has brought the record to this court for review by appeal.\nIt was agreed by the counsel for the respective parties that on April 1, 1906, the property in question was improved by a two-story frame house of ten rooms and a barn, and that the lot on which the buildings were situated was of ordinary size used for residence purposes in Oak Park and of a reasonable size for the location of the buildings thereon ; that the premises are, and were on April I, 1906, owned by the First Congregational Church of Oak Park, and are not, and were not at that time, used for pecuniary profit, and that no rent or revenue of any kind is, or was on April 1, 1906, derived from them; that the said premises are now, and were on that date, actually and exclusively used by the pastor of the said church and his immediate family for residence purposes, and that the pastor devotes, and did on April 1, 1906, devote, his whole time to the work of said church.\nAppellee\u2019s prima facie proof and the agreement above referred to were substantially all the evidence offered. Appellant contends that the court erred in not holding the property exempt from taxation.\nPearson & Herrick, for appellant:\nThe provision of the act of 1905 exempting certain parsonages from taxation is constitutional. Hurd\u2019s Stat. 1905, chap. 120, sec. 2, par. 2; Const. art. 9, sec. 3.\nThe legislature has plenary power, except as restricted by constitutional limitations. Kyle v. People, 226 Ill. 619.\nLimitations on legislative power in State constitutions are strictly construed. Cooley\u2019s Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 11; Sutherland on Stat. Const. (Lewis\u2019 ed.) secs. 81, 82.\nThe enumeration, in the constitution, of classes of property which the legislature may exempt from taxation is an implied exclusion of all other subjects of exemption. Supreme Lodge v. Board of Review, 223 Ill. 54.\nCourts will not declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional unless its unconstitutionality is perfectly clear. Wulff v. Aldrich, 124 Ill. 591; Gaines v. Williams, 146 id. 454; Kyle v. People, 226 id. 619; Cooley\u2019s Const. Lim. (7th ed.) 227, et seq., 252, et seq.\nA parsonage used exclusively by a pastor who devotes his entire time to church work is used exclusively for religious purposes. Female Seminary v. People, 106 id. 398; Trustees v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass. 599; Trustees v. Iowa, 46 Iowa, 275; Cook v. Hutchins, 46 id. 706.\nLyman, Lyman & O\u2019Connor, for appellant on rehearing.\nHarry A. Lewis, and William F. Struckmann, for appellee:\nThe building used by a minister of the gospel as a residence for himself and family is used for pecuniary profit. First M. E. Church v. Chicago, 26 Ill. 482; In the Matter of Swigert, 123 id. 267.\nAll laws, constitutional as well as statutory, exempting property from taxation, must be strictly construed against the exemptions claimed. The amendment of May 18, 1905, to the second clause of section 2 of the Revenue act of 1872 is unconstitutional. Bill of Rights, sec. 3; Const. art. 8, sec. 3, and art. 9, secs. 1, 3, 6; People v. Theological Seminary, 174 Ill. 177; Sanitary District v. Martin, 173 id. 243; County of Ramsey v. Church of Good Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229; Memphis v. Bank, 91 Tenn. 574; 164 U. S. 134.\nThe term \u201cchurch work\u201d must be construed to mean the same as the term \u201cused exclusively for religious worship,\u201d as that term is used in section 3 of article 9 of the constitution. A parsonage is not used \u201cexclusively for religious purposes\u201d but is used for secular purposes, and is not exempt. Commonwealth v. Thomas, 119 Ky. 208." }, "file_name": "0158-01", "first_page_order": 158, "last_page_order": 165 }