
    * The Amesbury Nail Factory Company versus Daniel Weed.
    The real estate of manufacturing corporations is liable to be assessed in parish taxes.
    The plaintiffs, a manufacturing corporation, possessed of rea estate lying within the East Parish in Amesbury, were assessed, in the year 1817, in the taxes made for the defraying of parochial charges arising in that parish. The defendant, to whom the said taxes were committed as parish collector, upon demand and refusal of the sum assessed upon the plaintiffs, seized and in due form of law sold certain goods belonging to them; for which they brought this action of trespass.
    
    The question submitted to the Court, upon a statement of the foregoing facts, was, whether the plaintiffs were liable by law to be assessed in a parish tax for their real estate lying within the limits of such parish. And judgment was to be rendered upon the non-suit of the plaintiffs, or the default of the defendant, as the opinon of the Court should be upon that question.
    
      Prince, for the plaintiffs.
    The principal question in this case depends exclusively on the construction of the constitution and laws of this commonwealth. The third article of the declaration of rights, which prescribes the duties, and defines the rights of citizens in relation to the maintenance of public worship, regards individuals only, as bound to contribute to its support, or as calculated or entitled to derive benefits from its observance. Corporations have no opportunity of voting on the expenses to be incurred for the settlement and support of public teachers; they can have no voice in their election or removal; and what is of still greater weight, they cannot possibly derive any benefit, in their political capacity, from the instructions or ministrations of those teachers. The observation of Lord Colee, in the case of Sutton’s Hospital, that corporations have no souls, applies with great force in this case; since the [ * 54 ] * whole purpose of creating parishes, and authorizing them to raise money, is merely pro salute animes.
    
    
      The individual corporators pay taxes for their shares in this property, for th’e support of public worship in their respective parishes. They are thus twice taxed for the same estate.
    Those who pay taxes for the support of public teachers of religion, have, by the constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, a right to require the moneys paid by them to be paid to the teacher of their own denomination, if there be any on whose instructions they attend. This right, esteemed so highly by our citizens, is wholly lost to corporations.
    Cummings, for the defendant.
    No action lies against the collector, he being duly elected and qualified, and having a legal and sufficient warrant from the assessors .
    But the defendant contends that no action lies against any one upon the facts in this case. All the real estate within the lines of a parish is taxable for parochial charges. There is no exception in the law of estates belonging to corporations. Nor is there any reason for such an exception. So far as. the community is inter ested in the support of public, religious and moral instruction, it regards only the prevention of crimes, not the salvation of souls. The property of corporate bodies is just as much benefited by these institutions, as that of individuals. The expense of schools rests upon the same foundation, and is liable to the same objections from corporations; and both are equally open to the objections of individual non-resident proprietors.
    In the present disposition of the citizens to vest their property in corporate funds, for almost every common purpose of life, and of the legislature to grant this species of franchise, if the real estate of corporations is to be exempted from parish taxes, the effect on parishes will be fatal.
    
      
       13 Mass. Rep. 282. 288.
    
   * By the Court.

The objection of the plaintiffs is, [ * 55 ] that they can derive no benefit from the expenditure of parochial taxes, and that they ought not therefore to be compelled to contribute to them. It was justly said in the argument, that the same objection lies for non-residents, and would as well apply in both cases to the taxes raised by towns for the support of schools, as to those raised for the support of public religious instruction. But the truth is, that the interests of corporations are promoted by both, equally with those of individuals. Property is made more secure, both by the education of children, and the religious and moral instruction' of adults. In this additional security, every owner of an estate receives a compensation for the moneys paid by him towards the support of those institutions. The estate of the plaintiffs, lying in the East Parish of Amesbury, was therefore liable, in equity and good conscience, as well as by law, to be assessed for its due proportion of the regular expenses of the parish.

Plaintiffs nonsuit.  