Beta Theta Pi Corp. v. Board of Com'rs of Cleveland County
| Decision Date | 03 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | 15793. |
| Citation | 234 P. 354,108 Okla. 78,1925 OK 176 |
| Parties | BETA THETA PI CORPORATION v. BOARD OF COM'RS OF CLEVELAND COUNTY. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Held, that the act approved March 29, 1919, the same being chapter 300, S. L. 1919, and now being section 9580 Comp. St. 1921, does not exceed the constitutional limitations upon the legislative power to exempt property from taxation and is a valid act. Held, further that under the proviso in section 6, art. 10, of the Constitution, to wit: "That all property not herein specified now exempt from taxation under the laws of the territory of Oklahoma, shall be exempt from taxation until otherwise provided by law," had the express effect of exempting all property coming within the classes of property exempted by the territorial statutes, including personal and real property, belonging to scientific, educational, and benevolent institutions, colleges or societies, and devoted solely to the appropriate objects of such institutions, and used solely for such purposes. Held, further that plaintiff in error, Beta Theta Pi Corporation, having been incorporated for such purposes, and its property being devoted and used solely for the promotion of educational moral, charitable, and public welfare, is exempt from taxation.
Under section 6, art. 10, of the Constitution, the "use" to which property is in fact dedicated is the test as to whether such property is exempt from taxation, and such "use" is a question of fact, to be determined from the evidence.
Appeal from District Court, Cleveland County; W. L. Eagleton, Judge.
In the matter of the assessment of the property of the Beta Theta Pi Corporation for the year 1923. On appeal by the Beta Theta Pi Corporation from a judgment holding its property liable for taxation for 1923. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Lydick, McPherren & Wilson, of Oklahoma City, and Kittie C. Sturdevant, of Shawnee, for plaintiff in error.
J. D. Holland, Co. Atty., of Norman, for defendants in error.
This case involves but one question, viz: Whether under the law the property owned and used by plaintiff in error, Beta Theta Pi Corporation, at the State University at Norman, is exempt from taxation.
There is no controversy as to the facts, further than that the facts do not bring the property within any of the constitutional exemptions. The fraternity is incorporated under the laws of the state, and owns and uses, for the purpose for which it is incorporated, certain lots, buildings, and appurtenances at the state university and in the city of Norman. This property was assessed for taxation for the year 1923. The fraternity claimed it to be exempt from taxation, the county attorney claimed it to be subject to taxation, and the trial court sustained the contention of the county attorney, whereupon the fraternity appealed to this court for review of the errors assigned.
There is no serious contention that the property in question is not exempt under the statutes (section 9580, Comp. St. 1921). But the county attorney, counsel for defendants in error, contends that this class of property was not included within any of the classes exempted from taxation by section 6, art. 10 of the Constitution, which exempts certain classes of property, naming the classes, and then in section 50, art. 5, expressly inhibits the Legislature from exempting any property not exempted by the Constitution, and contends that said section 9580, Comp. St. 1921, by exempting property not included in the Constitution, thereby exceeds the constitutional limitation upon legislative power to exempt property from taxation, and is void.
The trial court sustained this contention and held the statute void.
On the other hand, the fraternity contends that the class of property exempted by said section 9580 of the statute is within the classes exempted by said section 6, art. 10, of the Constitution, and that such statute is valid. The portion of said section 6, art. 10, pertinent to the question presented, is as follows:
"All property used for free public libraries, free museums, public cemeteries, property used exclusively for schools, colleges, and all property used exclusively for religious and charitable purposes, and all property of the United States, and of this state, and of counties and of municipalities of this state, household goods of the heads of families, tools, implements, and live stock employed in the support of the family, not exceeding one hundred dollars in value, and all growing crops, shall be exempt from taxation: Provided, that all property not herein specified now exempt from taxation under the laws of the territory of Oklahoma, shall be exempt from taxation until otherwise provided by law. * * *"
Section 50, art. 5, of the Constitution is as follows:
"The Legislature shall pass no law exempting any property within this state from taxation, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution."
Section 9580, Comp. St. 1921, is as follows:
This section was section 1 of chapter 300, S. L. 1919, and the whole controversy in the trial court was whether the property exempted by such section came within the classes of property exempted under that portion of section 6, art. 10, supra, preceding the concluding proviso in the above quotation, but the authority of the Legislature to exempt the class of property mentioned in section 9580, supra, is not confined to the constitutional provision preceding the above proviso, for the reason that said section 6, art. 10, of the Constitution enumerates certain classes of property which are by such section expressly exempted from taxation, and then provides:
"That all property not herein specified now exempt from taxation under the laws of the territory of Oklahoma, shall be exempt from taxation until otherwise provided by law."
Section 5914, Wilson's Rev. Statutes Okl. Ter. 1903, enumerates the classes of property exempt from taxation under territorial law, subdivisions 5 and 6 of which are as follows:
The foregoing statutes of the territory of Oklahoma were in force at the time said section 6, art. 10 of the Constitution with the foregoing proviso was adopted. Under the provisions of the above territorial statutes, the class of property involved herein was exempt, or at least could have claimed exemption, from taxation, for certainly the purposes, for which the facts in this case show the property in question to be dedicated and used, come within the accepted scope and meaning of the terms, "educational," "benevolent," "institutions," "colleges or societies," used in said territorial statute.
Under the foregoing proviso in section 6, art. 10 of the Constitution, all property exempt under the territorial law remained exempt until the state Legislature provided otherwise by law, and the state Legislature has never...
To continue reading
Request your trial