Board of Directors of Fort Dodge Independent School Dist. v. Board of Sup'rs of Webster County

• Decision Date: 18 June 1940
• Docket Number: 45215.
• Parties: BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FORT DODGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WEBSTER COUNTY et al.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

293 N.W. 38

228 Iowa 544

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FORT DODGE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WEBSTER COUNTY et al.

No. 45215.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 18, 1940

Appeal from District Court, Webster County; T. G. Garfield, Judge.

This is an action in mandamus brought to compel the board of supervisors of Webster County to direct its treasurer to refund certain taxes alleged to have been illegally exacted and paid; and to direct the county auditor to remove certain real estate from the assessment rolls. Defendants answered that the collections were proper and that the real estate was not exempt. The trial court found that the property was taxable and dismissed the petition. Plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

F. H Helsell and Wm. S. Burnquist, both of Fort Dodge, for appellant.

R. A Knudson, Co. Atty., and Donald J. Mitchell, Asst. Co. Atty both of Fort Dodge, for appellees.

SAGER Justice.

The will of one Hawley contained this provision: " To the School District of Fort Dodge, Iowa, and the Directors there of ten thousand ($10,000.00) Dollars as provided in said will, to-wit: In trust, to be by said Board invested in safe interest bearing securities, as a perpetual fund for the founding of one or more scholarships to be known as the ‘ Henry W. Hawley, Scholarship of the Fort Dodge High School’, for the purpose of aiding worthy graduates of that school in obtaining a collegiate education; only the income of said fund to be used for this purpose. The trustees of this fund shall invest the same to the best advantage and disburse the interest as herein in directed. On the first commencement of said school following the collection of the first yearly interest and annually thereafter the said Board and the Superintendent of said School, shall elect from its graduates, one or more, who shall have, by his or her proficiency in their studies, shown themselves worthy to be aided in obtaining a collegiate education, and the preference to be given to those who have not means of their own, and no discrimination be made between male and female applicants. Said Board of Directors shall determine the amount to be paid to each beneficiary, and shall pay the same to him or her from time to time, as needed, until he or she shall have completed or abandoned college studies. Should any one chosen as a beneficiary become, in the opinion of said directors, unworthy of such aid, said Board shall discontinue such aid."

The bequest herein provided for was invested in mortgages which were foreclosed with the result that the trustees hold five pieces of real estate instead of evidence of debt. It is to recover taxes paid on such real estate and prevent further collection that this action is brought.

Appellant bases its claim on these provisions of the Code 1935, section 6944: " The following classes of property shall not be taxed: * * * 2. Municipal and military property . The property of a county, township, city, town, school district, or military company, when devoted to public use and not held for pecuniary profit. * * * 11. Property of educational institutions . Real estate owned by any educational institution of this state as a part of its endowment fund, to the extent of one hundred sixty acres in any civil township."

Appellant argues that the beneficiary is an educational institution and that the property is devoted to a public use within the meaning of subsections of section 6944, above quoted. With these propositions the trial court did not agree, nor do we. Plaintiff is met at the outset with the rule universally announced in tax exemption cases. We said in Readlyn Hospital v. Hoth, 223 Iowa 341, 272 N.W. 90, 91, Kintzinger, J., speaking for the court: " Statutes passed for the purpose of exempting property from taxation must be strictly construed, and, if there is any doubt upon the question, it must be resolved against the exemption and in favor of taxation. The exemption is not to be made by judicial construction, but anyone claiming exemption from taxation under a statute must show clearly that the property is exempt within the terms of the Constitution and the statute." See, also, Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. of Iowa v....