Curators of Central College v. Rose

• Decision Date: 03 July 1944
• Docket Number: No. 39002.,39002.
• Citation: 182 S.W.2d 145
• Parties: CURATORS OF CENTRAL COLLEGE v. ROSE, Collector of Howard County.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

182 S.W.2d 145

CURATORS OF CENTRAL COLLEGE v. ROSE, Collector of Howard County.

No. 39002.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

July 3, 1944.

Rehearing Denied September 5, 1944.

Appeal Dismissed December 4, 1944. See 65 S.Ct. 269.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Howard County; A. R. Hammett, Judge.

Action in equity by the Curators of the Central College, a corporation, against Mary E. Rose, Collector of Howard County, to declare illegal and void certain real estate taxes assessed against land owned by plaintiff, to remove the cloud of such assessments from plaintiff's title, and to enjoin defendant from enforcing collection of such taxes. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Scarritt, Jones & Gordon, of Kansas City, for appellant.

Wilbur F. Daniels, of Fayette, for respondent.

DALTON, Commissioner.

Action in equity to declare illegal and void certain real estate taxes assessed against described lands owned by plaintiff in Howard county, to remove the cloud of said assessment of taxes from plaintiff's title and to enjoin defendant from attempting to enforce the collection of such taxes. The trial court found for defendant and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff has appealed.

The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts. "Central College was incorporated, as an educational institution under the corporate name of `The Curators of the Central College', by an act of the State Legislature, which went into effect March 1, 1855." Laws 1855, p. 106. The institution was first established in 1844, but until incorporated, as stated, it operated under the name of Howard High School, unincorporated. The college, since its incorporation, has been continuously operated and has an average annual enrollment of between five hundred and six hundred students. It affords to the general public the usual educational facilities of a college.

The college acquired, and now owns, the described real estate, which was acquired during the period between 1929 and 1932. The lands were granted or devised to the college and are held for the benefit of education. They form a substantial part of the endowment. All taxes, except taxes payable in 1943, have been paid. In 1942, with due formality, the lands were assessed for taxes payable in 1943. It is agreed that these taxes are valid "if said lands are subject to taxation, that is, unless said lands are exempted from taxation while owned by said college." If the college is required to pay taxes on all lands owned, the annual expenditure for such purpose will be approximately $8,000. Defendant is the duly qualified acting collector of Howard county and will proceed to enforce collection of the taxes, unless enjoined.

There is no contention that the described lands are specifically exempt from taxation under Art. 10, Sec. 6 of the present Constitution (1875), Mo.R.S.A., under any other provision thereof or under Sec. 10937, R.S. 1939, Mo.R.S.A. Appellant contends that said lands are exempt by reason of an Act of 1851, Laws 1851, p. 64, (1) by the force and effect of the Act of 1851 itself, (2) by reason of said Act being "read into" appellant's corporate charter as if set forth therein, or (3) by the "very language of appellant's charter, construed in connection with laws in pari materia therewith," particularly the Act of 1851, supra.

The Act of 1851, supra, was entitled "An Act for the benefit of William Jewell College" and the first section of the Act reads as follows: "That all the land and improvements thereon now owned by the `William Jewell College' in the counties of Clay, of Grundy, Mercer and Sullivan, and all the lands that may hereafter be granted or devised to said college, or any other institution of learning in this state, for the benefit of education, be, and the same are hereby exempted from all taxes and assessments so long as said lands may be owned by said college." (Italics ours). The Act is set out in full in State ex rel. Waller v. Trustees of William Jewell College, 234 Mo. 299, 311, 136 S.W. 397. The Act was there considered and construed, in connection with a special act of the Legislature, passed in 1849, Laws 1849, p. 232, granting a charter to William Jewell College, and it was held that "when all the surroundings are considered, the public policy of the state considered, these two acts considered, and other acts about the same time considered, it is evidence that there was a legislative intent to relieve the property constituting the endowment fund of this corporation from the burdens of taxation." (234 Mo. 299, 318, 136 S.W. 397, 401).

In the case of Trustees of William Jewell College of Liberty v. Beavers, 351 Mo. 87, 171 S.W.2d 604, the Act of 1851, supra, was again considered by the court en banc in connection with the Act of 1849, supra. The holding in the former case (234 Mo. 299, 136 S.W. 397) was approved on the theory that the special act of 1849, chartering William Jewell College, and the 1851 Act, exempting property of the college from taxation, were required to be construed together; and that the 1851 Act became a part of the "charter" and, when accepted and acted on, constituted a "contract," which was protected by the Federal Constitution, and the tax exemption in favor of the college could not be impaired by subsequent constitutional provisions and statutes. The reasons for the court's holding are fully stated in the opinion. The court said that, "In these circumstances, it seems reasonable to consider the two acts together as constituting plaintiff's entire charter and its acceptance as such." (171 S.W.2d 604, 608).

The pertinent provisions of the Act of 1855, supra, granting a special charter to Central College, are as follows: "J. S. Waddill (and others named) * * * and their successors in office, are hereby constituted a body politic, with all the rights, powers and privileges usually enjoyed by colleges and universities of the highest grade, or which may be necessary and proper to enable them to promote the cause of learning in the state. * * *

"The corporation may acquire and hold property of every description, real and personal, and dispose of the same as it may see fit * * * and to do all other acts necessary or proper to establish and maintain an institution for the instruction of both males and females, in every branch of learning and knowledge. * * *

"The college is established at Fayette, in the county of Howard, in this state, and the style of it is `The Curators of the Central College.' * * *

"The 6th, 7th, and 18th sections of the first article of the act of this state of 19th March, 1845, respecting corporations, shall not apply to this corporation, and this act shall be deemed a public act, and take effect from its passage."

The 7th section of the Act of 1845, referred to supra, provided that "the charter of every corporation that shall hereafter be granted by the legislature, shall be subject to alteration, suspension, and repeal, in the discretion of the legislature." Rev.St. Mo. 1845, p. 232, Ch. 34, Art. 1, § 7.

The Constitution adopted by this state in 1875 prohibited the granting of tax exemptions by the legislature, Art. 10, § 2; and declared that laws granting exemptions beyond those specifically authorized by it "shall be void". Art. 10, § 7. This Constitution further provided in Art. 12, § 1, that "all existing charters, or grants of special or exclusive privileges, under which a bona fide organization shall not have taken place, and business been commenced in good faith, at the adoption of this Constitution, shall thereafter have no validity." Sec. 1, Schedule of 1875, provided that "all laws which are inconsistent with this Constitution, shall cease upon its adoption, except that all laws which are inconsistent with such provisions of this Constitution as require legislation to enforce them shall remain in force until the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-seven, unless sooner amended or repealed by the General Assembly." Appellant does not contend that the part of the Act of 1851, supra, relied upon, was a grant of a special charter or a grant of a special or exclusive privilege to it (since the corporation was not in existence when the act was passed), but considers the same as a general law then exempting from all taxes and assessments the lands granted or devised to institutions of learning in this state.

In view of the conclusions we have reached, we may assume, without deciding, that the part of the Act of 1851, upon which appellant relies, Laws 1851, p. 64, was such a general act; that it was in full force and effect when appellant was chartered; and that the act exempted, from all taxes and assessments, all lands thereafter granted or devised to any institution of learning in the state, so long as such lands were owned by such institution. The issue presented, therefore, is, whether the described lands, acquired by appellant in the years 1929-1932 were exempted from the payment of all taxes and assessments by force and effect of said (1851) act itself? The only authority cited in support of appellant's assignment that "the Act of 1851, Laws 1851, p. 64, serves to exempt appellant's lands from taxation, even though said act may not be deemed to be a part of appellant's corporate charter," is the case of William Jewell College v. Beavers, supra. Appellant quotes the words, "Therefore, whatever may be the power of the state to repeal plaintiff's tax exemption under the reservation in the general corporation law of 1845, it did not do so by adopting the Constitutions of 1865 and 1875, or by general statutes enacted for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of those Constitutions." 171 S.W.2d 604, 610. Appellant says that, "That ruling definitely establishes the proposition that the privilege of tax exemption granted by the Act of 1851 has not been repealed, nor revoked, insofar as it affects institutions of...