Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Free & Accepted Masons of Maryland

• Decision Date: 07 February 1879
• Citation: 50 Md. 421
• Parties: APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. THE GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF MARYLAND. APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. The Grand Lodge of the German Order of Harugari. APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. The Baltimore General Dispensary. APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. The Centenary Institute of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Baltimore.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

50 Md. 421

APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. THE GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS OF MARYLAND.

APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. The Grand Lodge of the German Order of Harugari.

APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. The Baltimore General Dispensary.

APPEAL TAX COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY v. The Centenary Institute of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Baltimore.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 7, 1879

A Leo Knott, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Charles J. M. Gwinn, Attorney-General, for the appellant.

As to the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland.

The exemption granted to this appellee by the Act of 1867, ch 23, was a privileged gratuity which the Legislature had a right to revoke, and which it did absolutely revoke by the second section of the Act of 1876, ch. 260. Christ Church v. County of Phila., 24 How. 302; Tucker v Ferguson, 22 Wall. 527; R. R. Co. v Supervisors, 93 U.S. 597, 598.

The appellee, after the enactment of the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2, could not claim that any portion of the Masonic Temple was exempted from taxation, except such part as was used for the benefit of the indigent and afflicted. Trustees v. Boston, 120 Mass. 212; County Comm'rs v. Sisters of St. Joseph, 48 Md. 34.

The petition in this case admitted that the appellee derived income from the lower portions of the Masonic Temple. It did not set forth, as it ought to have done, the amount of this income, or supply any data from which the taxable value of the portions of the building used for earning revenue could be computed; nor did it show, as it ought to have done, what portions of the building were used exclusively for charitable purposes. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Comm'rs of Taxes, 64 N.Y. 541. But inasmuch as it clearly discloses that a part of the building was liable to taxation, the order of the court below directing the whole property to be stricken from the list of property valued to the appellee must be reversed.

As to the Grand Lodge of the German Order of Harugari.

In this case it appears, by the petition of the appellee, that the lower floor of the building owned by it is rented as a restaurant for one thousand dollars a year. This appellee cannot claim any exemption from taxation of the portions of its building which are thus rented. The order of the court below, directing all the property valued to the appellee to be stricken from the tax lists, must, therefore, be reversed. This petition ought not to have been entertained, because it did not show upon its face, as it ought to have done, to give Baltimore City Court jurisdiction, that it was filed within thirty days after the return made by the Board of Control and Review to the Appeal Tax Court of Baltimore City. 1876, ch. 260, sec. 28; Walker v. Turner, 9 Wheat. 548; 1 Gill, 372; 6 G. & J. 345; 20 Md. 277; Governor's Message, January Session, 1878, page 9.

As to the Baltimore General Dispensary.

This appellee, under the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2, can claim exemption from taxation only upon the property designated in its petition as lot and building No. 29 Liberty Street. The lot and improvements designated as lot No. 30, north-east corner of Liberty and Fayette Streets, and all the securities owned by the appellee, were subject to valuation and assessment, under the Act of 1876, ch. 260, and were properly valued to the appellee, unless the Maryland State Stock, so valued, was an issue exempted from taxation by this State. Such exemption cannot, however, be assumed to exist, because only certain issues of our State Stock are thus exempted; and no averment is made that this particular stock was exempted. If the appellee is entitled to any relief as to this particular stock, it can be obtained by application to the Appeal Tax Court, under the Act of 1878, ch. 178, sec. 150.

As to the Centenary Biblical Institute of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Baltimore.

The petition in this case, while averring that the colored persons prepared for the ministry by the appellee are not charged anything for room-rent, books or tuition, does not aver that charges are not made for the subsistence of those who are received into the institution; nor does the petition affirmatively show, as it ought to have done, that the property for which exemption was claimed was wholly used for the benefit of the indigent. The absence of these averments would seem to make it necessary to reverse the order of the court below, passed in this case.

The petition in this case did not show upon its face that it was filed within thirty days after the return made by the Board of Control and Review to the Appeal Tax Court. (See authorities cited ante, page 424.) Neither the court nor the counsel for the State have power to waive the statutory limit of time prescribed for the filing of such petition.

John M. Carter, for the appellee, the Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland.

The exemption from taxation under the Act of 1867, ch. 23, was not a mere gratuity which the Legislature could revoke at pleasure; nor was it a part of the charter (1821, ch. 147,) of this appellee. The Act of 1867 constituted a contract between the State and the corporation, and especially the stockholders who should subscribe to the stock issued to aid in building the Masonic Temple. It was a promise to the corporation that if it would complete the building, and to subscribers that if they would make subscriptions and aid in the enterprise, the State would exempt the property from the burden of taxation so long as the Grand Lodge continued in the possession and use of the property, for the purposes set forth in its act of incorporation. Upon the faith of that contract the subscriptions to stock were made, and the temple was completed, and has ever since been dedicated to the uses and purposes set forth in the appellee's charter, thus fulfilling the condition upon which the exemption was granted, and putting it out of the power of the State to impose taxes while the property is so used. Home of the Friendless v. Rouse, 8 Wall. 430.

Nor does the fact that the lower floor of the building is rented to tenants as a source of revenue, to be used in promoting the benevolent purposes of the appellee, subject that portion of the building to taxation. The exemption contained in the Act of 1867 applies to the entire buildings situated upon the lot in question. The temple was then in existence and was exempted eo nomine, together with the stock subscribed to for the purpose of aiding in its construction.

The 3rd section of the Act of 1878, repealing the 2nd section of the Act of 1876, before the completion of the assessments wherein appeals were pending, left no law in force providing for the assessment of the appellee's property at the time the court below was called upon to determine it to be subject to assessment and taxation. Cooley on Taxation, 14, and cases cited; Dwarris on Statutes, 160; Key v. Goodwin, 4 Moore & Payne, 341; U.S. v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 37; Fenellon's Petition, 7 Pa. St. 173; Van Inwagen v. Chicago, 61 Ill. 31; McQuilkin v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 581; Balto. v. Norwood, 12 Md. 195; Keller v. State, 12 Md. 325; Day v. Day, 22 Md. 539; Price v. Nesbitt, 29 Md. 263; Wade v. St. Mary's Ind. School, 43 Md. 180; Smith v. State, 45 Md. 49.

Richard Hamilton, for the appellee, The Grand Lodge of the German Order of Harugari.

The property of this appellee was wrongfully assessed, inasmuch as it was expressly exempt by the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2.

As to the claim that the petition was filed too late, this appellee contends that the point was not made below, and that the Act of 1876, ch. 260, contemplated more than the notice given by the return to the Appeal Tax Court. It contemplated actual notice upon the appellee, either by the service of the tax bill, or some written notice of the fact, that the property had been returned to the Appeal Tax Court as assessed.

E. Calvin Williams, for the appellee, The Baltimore General Dispensary.

The property of this appellee, being only used for the benefit of the indigent and afflicted, is exempted by the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2. All the property valued and assessed being necessary equipments for carrying on the objects of the dispensary, every dollar of the income being used solely and entirely in dispensing medicine and medical attention to the indigent and afflicted of the City of Baltimore and State of Maryland. The property valued and assessed for taxation, and designated as lot No. 29, on the south side of Liberty street, with the improvements thereon, is exempt by the language of the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2, as well as by the Act of 1878, ch. 413, as this lot and the improvements are used exclusively and only for the purposes of the said Dispensary; and the building covers the entire lot.

Robinson J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of Maryland, was incorporated in 1821, as a benevolent and charitable institution; and was authorized to hold real and personal property to an amount, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars in annual value.

By the Act of 1867, ch. 23, the ground and building belonging to the appellee in Baltimore City, known as "The Masonic...