Williston Seminary v. County Commissioners
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- City of St. Albans v. Avery (Vt. 1921)
- Florida Nat. Bank of Jacksonville v. Simpson (Fla. 1952)
- Trustees of Iowa College v. Baillie (Iowa 1945)
- Board of County Com'rs v. Sand Springs Home (Okla. 1939)
- Security Savings & Trust Co. v. Lane County (Or. 1935)
- King County v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. (9th Cir. 1922)
- State v. Settegast (Tex. App. 1920)
- Ellsworth College v. Emmet County (Iowa 1912)
- State v. Watkins (Minn. 1909)
- Dept. of Rev. v. New Friends of the Beaverton City Library (Oregon Tax Court 2019)
- Board of Assessors v. Commissioners of Hampshire County (Mass. 1993)
- Cochrane v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation (Mass. 1966)
- Venditto v. Bruno (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1956)
- Animal Rescue League v. Assessors of Bourne (Mass. 1941)
- Assessors of Boston v. Garland School of Home Making (Mass. 1937)
- Assessors of Weston v. Trustees of Boston College (Mass. 1937)
- Maguire v. Tax Commissioner (Mass. 1918)
- Oldfield v. Attorney General (Mass. 1914)
- Watson v. City of Boston (Mass. 1911)
- New England Sanitarium v. Inhabitants of Stoneham (Mass. 1910)
- Gray v. Central Massachusetts Railroad (Mass. 1898)
- Inhabitants of Essex v. Brooks (Mass. 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
By the Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 20, cl. 6, “Personal property placed in the hands of a corporation or individual as an accumulating fund for the future benefit of heirs or other persons shall be assessed to such heirs or persons, if within the
The question therefore is, whether the property held as an accumulating fund was properly assessed to the Seminary, in view of the Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 5, cl. 3, by which the personal property of literary, benevolent, charitable, and scientific institutions, incorporated within this Commonwealth, is exempted from taxation. It is contended on the part of the respondents, that this property is not yet the property of the Seminary; that the vesting of it is expressly postponed until certain conditions precedent ar.e fulfilled; and that the possibility or probability that it will become the property of the Seminary cannot exempt it. But the statute of exemption is not limited to personal property in possession; it exempts all the personal property of such institutions, whether in possession or not. All property, real and personal, of the inhabitants of this State is taxable, except such as is expressly exempted by law; and the personal property of the enumerated institutions is expressly exempted by law. The word “ property,” in its ordinary legal signification, “ is nomen generalissimum, and extends to every species of valuable right and interest.” Boston & Lowell Railroad v. Salem & Lowell Railroad, 2 Gray, 1, 35. The right or interest which the Seminary has in this accumulating fund is properly described.as its property.
An ordinary cestui que trust has a property in a fund held for his benefit; he has a right and interest which he may vindicate
In other cases, and ordinarily under the statutes as they now stand, though formerly it was otherwise, personal property held in trust is taxable to the trustee, if within the Commonwealth. Pub. Sts. c. 11, § 20, cl. 5. But in case of personal property held in trust as an accumulating fund, the persons to be assessed shall be those for whose future benefit the property is held. For the purpose of taxation, it is to be deemed their property; they are the taxable owners. Nobody else can be assessed for it. In the present case, the Seminary, as a body politic and corporate, stands as the person for whose future benefit the fund is held, and therefore, according to the method prescribed by the general provision of law, would be taxable for it. But under the exemption clause its personal property is exempt from taxation. The general law, providing the rule for the method of taxation, does not have the effect to override the particular exemption. The fact that, by the Pub. Sts. c. 12, § 22, an action for the recovery of such a tax may be maintained against the trustee, does not change the effect of the other statutes.
Certiorari to issue.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.