{ "id": 8623878, "name": "SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, INC. v. WAKE COUNTY and THE TOWN OF WAKE FOREST", "name_abbreviation": "Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Inc. v. Wake County", "decision_date": "1958-05-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "420", "last_page": "422", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "248 N.C. 420" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "13 S.E. 2d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623250 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0347-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 345, "char_count": 5747, "ocr_confidence": 0.576, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08, "percentile": 0.3153315116055029 }, "sha256": "a556a52ecd93356d9e3e8a0f64c952a3ac03e14e5aa56fb7b280cdcca16be330", "simhash": "1:cca3b94017b24e6d", "word_count": 923 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:24.992419+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "DeNNY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "WinboRNE, C.J., concurs in result." ], "parties": [ "SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, INC. v. WAKE COUNTY and THE TOWN OF WAKE FOREST." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nG.S. 1-250 requires that the parties \u201cagree upon a case containing the facts on which the controversy depends.\u201d The present submission does not comply with this requirement.\nThe agreed statement of facts sets forth that \u201cthere are buildings on each unit, and the buildings thereon are presently used as residences exclusively by the officers, instructors, students and their families of said Seminary, have been so used since the acquisition of title; and the occupants pay reasonable rentals to the Seminary, the names, amount of rent and the relationship, if any, of the occupant of each property to the Seminary being as set forth in Exhibit \u2018A\u2019 hereto attached.\u201d Exhibit B, an attached map, shows the location of each unit except \u201c312 Falls Rd.\u201d\nAn examination of Exhibit A shows: (1) \u201c312 Falls Rd. House removed, New Trailer Park now occupies site. Eleven trailer coaches now using park. Rental $12.50 per month each. All residents are students\u201d; (2)\u201c309 West Ave. Unoccupied\u201d; (3) \u201c102 S. Wingate (and) 106 S. Wingate. Both buildings removed, Seminary Cafeteria now occupies these lots\u201d; (4) \u201c303 Pine St. Barrack. Removed November 1956. Vacant Lot\u201d; and (5) \u201c203 N. Wingate. House removed. Area now used as Seminary Parking Lot.\u201d It is noted that 102 S. Wingate and 106 S. Wingate, referred to in (3) above, are listed as separate units in the agreed statement.\nIf Exhibit A is correct, there are no buildings \u201cpresently used as residences exclusively by the officers, instructors, students and their families of said Seminary,\u201d on any of the six properties referred to in the preceding paragraph. The agreed statement and Exhibit A are in conflict.\nAs to each of the remaining ten properties, Exhibit A shows the street address thereof, the name of the \u201crenter,\u201d the relationship of the \u201crenter\u201d to the institution, e.g., \u201cStudent,\u201d \u201cAdm. Officer,\u201d \u201cFaculty,\u201d and the amount of rent paid by each \u201crenter\u201d to plaintiff.\nNeither the agreed statement nor Exhibit A provides any descriptive data as to any residence building or the number of occupants or their relationship to the \u201crenter,\u201d or as to the relationship, if any, between the present use of these properties and plaintiff\u2019s educational program, or as to the availability for like use of other properties of plaintiff now recognized by defendants as tax-exempt, or as to any other facts which might bear upon the taxable status of these, allegedly exempt properties.\nObviously, the conflict between the agreed statement and Exhibit A makes it impossible to pass on the six properties involved in such conflict. Moreover, the agreed facts are insufficient to determine with definiteness the taxable status of the remaining ten properties; and, since the cause must be remanded, we deem it appropriate to vacate the judgment of the court below in its entirety, without approving or disapproving any of the rulings on which the judgment was based.\nIf the parties so desire, they may submit an agreed statement setting forth with particularity in respect of each of the sixteen properties \u201cthe facts upon which the controversy depends\u201d as required by G.S. 1-250.\nThe cause will be remanded for further proceedings. This is in accord with the procedure in Guilford College v. Guilford County, 219 N.C. 347, 13 S.E. 2d 622, where the facts were set forth in greater detail than in the present agreed statement.\nJudgment vacated and cause remanded.\nDeNNY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nWinboRNE, C.J., concurs in result.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mordecai, Mills & Parker for plaintiff, appellant.", "Thomas A. Banks and Wright T. Dixon, Jr., for defendant Wake County, appellant.", "J. C. Keeter for defendant Town of Wake Forest, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, INC. v. WAKE COUNTY and THE TOWN OF WAKE FOREST.\n(Filed 21 May, 1958.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 49\u2014\nWhere, in the submission of a controversy to determine whether certain of plaintiff\u2019s properties are exempt from taxation (G.S. 105-296(4)), there is conflict between the agreed statement and an exhibit attached as to the nature and use of certain of the properties and the relationship of the occupant to plaintiff, and as to other properties, the facts agreed are insufficient to determine with definiteness the taxable status of such properties, the cause must be remanded for further proceedings.\nDenny, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nWinbokne, C. J., concurs in result.\nAppeals by plaintiff and defendants from Fountain, Special Judge, December Special Civil Term, 1957, of WaKe.\nControversy without action submitted under G.S. 1-250 relating to the taxable status of properties, consisting of sixteen separate units, located in the Town of Wake Forest and identified only by street address.\nWake Forest College, plaintiff\u2019s predecessor in ownership, had listed these properties regularly for a number of years for taxation by Wake County and the Town of Wake Forest and had paid the ad valorem taxes assessed thereon. For 1957, over plaintiff\u2019s objection, these properties were listed by defendants; and plaintiff paid under protest the taxes assessed thereon.\nPlaintiff seeks to recover the amounts of 1957 taxes paid by it to defendants, contending that G.S. 105-296(4), enacted under authority of Article V, Section 5, Constitution of North Carolina, exempts these properties from taxation.\nThe court below held that six off-campus residence buildings rented from plaintiff and occupied as residences by administrative officers or faculty members were exempt, but that the agreed facts were insufficient to show that the remaining ten properties were exempt.\nPlaintiff and defendants excepted and appealed from judgment in accordance with said ruling.\nMordecai, Mills & Parker for plaintiff, appellant.\nThomas A. Banks and Wright T. Dixon, Jr., for defendant Wake County, appellant.\nJ. C. Keeter for defendant Town of Wake Forest, appellant." }, "file_name": "0420-01", "first_page_order": 462, "last_page_order": 464 }