Cited by

In re Nelson’s Addition to Minneapolis, (also cited as County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of the Church of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460, 463 (1881)).

For example, we have long held that the term “institution” “comprehends not only a building, and the [property] covered by it, but adjacent [property] which is reasonably necessary or appropriate to the purposes and objects in view, and which is used directly for the promotion and accomplishment of the same.” In re Nelson’s Addition to Minneapolis, 27 Minn. 460, 462-63 , 8 N.W.

ning of young people have been long and widely accepted.” The commissioner has read our decisions as establishing seven prerequisites for granting an organization tax-exempt status as a charitable institution: (1) It must be organized and operated for the purpose of rendering aid, comfort, and assistance to the sick and indigent (for which he cites County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , [1881]); (2) it must be conducted without a view to profit (for which he cites State

See, County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Church of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460

2 See, State v. Browning, 192 Minn. 25 , ; County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , .

It is the direct and immediate use of the property, and not the use of the income therefrom, that is determinative of whether the property is used for tax-exempt purposes.” Again, in County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Church of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , , where the term “public hospital” was involved, this court held a public hospital exempt from taxation because in addition to being a public hospital it was held to be an institution of “purely public charity.” Therein it was said ( 27 Minn.

2 County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of the Church of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , ; State v. Bishop Seabury Mission, 90 Minn. 92 , .

le hospital, and thus it is not urged to be exempt from taxation under that part of art. 9, § 1, of the constitution which exempts “purely public charity.” Further, there is-no doubt but that the entire property here involved is used for hospital purposes, so that if this is a public hospital the property is exempt in its entirety under the rule of County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460, 462-463 , , 38 Am.

Reference may be made to the following : County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , , 38 Am.

County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , , 38 Am.

In County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Church of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , , it was said that the word “institution” in the constitution •comprehends not only a building and the ground covered by it, but ^adjacent ground which is reasonably necessary or proper to the purposes and object in view, and which is used directly for the promotion and accomplishment of the same, and fo

County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Church of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460 , .

The language has this broader meaning, viz., *441 “reasonably necessary or appropriate for the proper occupancy, use, and enjoyment of the institution.” County of Hennepin v. Brotherhood of Gethsemane, 27 Minn. 460, 462, 463 , ( 8 N. W. Rep.