City of Baltimore v. Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1883
• Citation: 60 Md. 280
• Parties: THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE and Henry S. Taylor, Collector, v. THE GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

60 Md. 280

THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE and Henry S. Taylor, Collector, v. THE GRAND LODGE OF ANCIENT FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 19, 1883

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Baltimore City.

This is an appeal from a pro forma order of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, overruling the appellants' demurrer to the bill filed by the appellee, to restrain them from proceeding to collect the State and city taxes for 1882 upon certain rentals of the appellee, derived from portions of the """"Masonic Temple."

The cause was submitted to Miller, Yellott, Stone, Alvey and Irving, JJ.

John P. Poe and Charles J. M. Gwinn Attorney-General, for the appellants.

John S. Tyson and Albert Ritchie, for the appellee.

Alvey J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The bill in this case was filed to obtain an injunction to restrain the collection of taxes from the appellee, upon the ground, principally, that the property upon which the taxes were assessed, has been exempted from taxation by law. The question arises upon a demurrer to the bill, and its determination depends upon the proper construction of a clause in the third section of the Act of 1880, ch. 122.

The second section of the Act just referred to contains a designation of the various kinds of property liable to taxation, and concludes by declaring that "all other property of every kind, nature and description, within this State, shall be valued to the respective owners thereof, in the manner prescribed by the laws of this State, and shall be assessed and taxed as the property of such respective owners, according to such prescribed methods of valuation, except as provided in the next ensuing section."

The next ensuing section of the Act contains an enumeration of the property that shall be exempt from taxation; and, in that section, among other exemptions, it is declared, that the provisions of the second section of the Act shall not apply "to the buildings, equipment and furniture of hospitals, asylums, charitable or benevolent institutions, or to the grounds appurtenant thereto, in any city or incorporated town in this State, which is necessary for the respective uses thereof." This Act of 1880, ch. 122, repealed and re-enacted with amendments secs. 2 and 3 of the Act of 1878, ch. 413; and this last mentioned Act, therefore, can have no application to this case.

It is conceded that the appellee is a benevolent institution, and that it is the owner of what is known as "The Masonic Temple," a building located in the City of Baltimore. It is only the upper portion of this building that is used by the appellee for the purposes of the lodge, and the lower portion has been constructed into storerooms and halls, and as such rented out and used, and the revenue derived therefrom has been received and applied to the purposes of the association. It is upon the capitalization of such rentals that the assessment in question has been made, and not upon the whole building itself; but the rate of such capitalization does not appear.

By the Act of 1876, ch. 260, sec. 2, the buildings of charitable or benevolent institutions, so far as used for their corporate purposes, and the ground upon which such buildings stood, were exempt from taxation; and under that exemption, and in respect to this same building, this court held, in Appeal Tax Court v. Grand Lodge, 50 Md. 421, that to the extent of the rentals received the appellee was liable to taxation. And we have not been able to perceive anything in the subsequent legislation to relieve the appellee from that liability.

The right of taxation is never presumed to be relinquished; and before any party can rightfully claim an exemption from the common burden, it is incumbent upon that party to show affirmatively that the exemption claimed is authorized by law. If there be a real doubt upon the subject, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the State; and it is only where the exemption is shown to be granted in terms clear and unequivocal that the right of exemption can be maintained.

Here the question turns upon what is contemplated by the statute in exempting...