Hyperlawhypertext legal database Western Dispensary v. Mayor of New York 24 N.Y. St. Rep. 178

← Cases

Western Dispensary v. Mayor of New York

24 N.Y. St. Rep. 178 Court General Term, Decision date 1889-01-07 English

Delivered by Ingraham, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 178
Western Dispensary of the City of New York, Plt’ff, v. Mayor, Etc., of New York, Def’t.
(New York Superior Court,
General Term,
Filed January 7, 1889.)

Headnote

'Taxation'—Corporation—Alms house—Medical dispensar?
The use of a building of a corporation organized under the act of 1848, for the gratuitous medical and surgical relief of the poor, and lor a hospital for indigent sick, and as a dispensary for the relief of the poor, no fee or return being exacted therefor, is that of an alms house within the meaning as defined by the court of appeals in the case of Association v. Mayor, 6 1ST. Y. State Rep., 477, and is exempt from taxation.
Case submitted on agreed statement.
Robert W. Gilbert, for plt’ff ; Henry R. Beekman, for def’t.

Plaintiff is a corporation duly organized under the act of 1848, for the incorporation of benevolent, charitable, scientific, and missionary societies, and the objects stated in the certificate of the plaintiff’s corporation are the gratuitous medical and surgical relief of the poor of the city of New York ; that during the years for winch the taxes claimed to be illegal were imposed, the building

p. 179
on the property upon which the taxes were imposed was entirely devoted, to charitable purposes, either as a hospital. for indigent sick, or as a dispensary for the relief of the poor who called there, and the work of the plaintiff, in all its departments, was entirely gratuitous; no fee or return having been exacted for medical attendance, food, clothing, lodging, or for any other thing or reason whatever. I think the use of this property by the plaintiff is that of an alms-house, as defined by the court of appeals in the case of Association v. Mayor, 104 N. Y., 587 ; 12 N. E. Rep., 279 , and that it was exempt, on that ground, from taxation. I think, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to judgment declaring the property described exempt from taxation, and that said taxes are illegal and void, and directing the cancellation thereof upon the books and records of the defendant.

All concur.