Armstrong Co. v. Kittanning Borough Overseers
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Armstrong Co. v. Kittanning Borough Overseers, 2 Monag. 316 (Pa. 1888)
15 A. 892; 1888 Pa. LEXIS 810
Armstrong Co. v. Kittanning Borough Overseers
Opinion of the Court
There can be no doubt but that the learned judge of the court below came to a proper conclusion when he gave judgment in favor of the defendant in the case now in hand. The only remarkable thing about it is that the county commissioners should have undertaken to tax, for county purposes, the property of the Kittanning poor-district, for, if the statutory maintenance of the poor be not a purely public charity, the definition of such a charity would be indeed difficult. But, if the judicial opinion of this court be required in support of the learned judge’s decision, it may be found in the case of Cumru Township v. Directors of the Poor, 112 Pa. 264.
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- A farm appurtenant to a poor-house, owned by a borough, but situate in a township, and used and appropriated as a place for the maintenance of the poor of the borough, and supported by taxes collected from the citizens of the borough, is exempt from taxation for county purposes, as an institution of purely public charity, or as public property used for public purposes, under article ix, \\ 1, of the constitution and the Act of May 14, 1874. The character of the property, for exemption purposes, is not affected by the incidental use of the property in receiving paupers from other districts, the proceeds being applied to the maintenance of the paupers on the premises. Nor by the fact that the product of the land and the labor of the paupers on the premises were devo ted to the support and maintenance of the paupers. It is not necessary that a case-stated, in such case, should find specifically that the lands annexed to the poor-house are necessary for the occupancy and enjoyment of the same.