Defenders of the Christian Faith v. Horn, 38379
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
| Citation | 174 Kan. 40,254 P.2d 830 |
| Docket Number | No. 38379,38379 |
| Parties | DEFENDERS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Inc. et al. v. HORN et al. |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1953 |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an original proceedings in mandamus for judgment requiring the members of the state commission of revenue and taxation to make an order removing certain property from the tax rolls for the reason that the property is used exclusively for religious purposes, the record is examined and it is held that the evidence is insufficient to authorize this court to render such a judgment.
Robert N. Partridge, of Wichita, George Siefkin, George B. Powers, Samuel E. Bartlett, Carl T. Smith, John F. Eberhardt, Stuart R. Carter, Robert C. Foulston, Jr., and Thomas E. Woods, all of Wichita, on the briefs, for plaintiffs.
Wilbur G. Leonard, of Council Grove, C. V. Rankin, of Lawrence, and Ervin G. Johnston, of Peru, on the briefs, for defendants.
This is an original proceeding in mandamus for judgment directing the state commission of revenue and taxation and the members thereof to issue an order declaring certain property to be exempt and to remove the same from the tax rolls of the state and of Sedgwick county, and to refund the tax for the year 1948, declared to have been paid. In the petition it was alleged that the Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc., is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Kansas, with its principal place of business at 2502 East Douglas Avenue in the city of Wichita; that Dr. Gerald D. Winrod of Wichita; Dr. William T. Watson of St. Petersburg, Florida; Dr. Edward Fehr of Hoisington, Kansas; Dr. Jose Hernandez of New York, and Dr. J. F. Rodrigues of Piedras, Puerto Rico, are the duly authorized and acting trustees of the Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc., and as such trustees hold the title to the building and improvements located at 2502 East Douglas Avenue, Wichita, more particularly described as Lots 24 and 26, Douglas Avenue, Lot 5, Oliver's Subdivision, Chautauqua Addition to the city of Wichita, and as said trustees hold the property for the benefit of the corporation; that the Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc., is a non-profit corporation organized for religious purposes; that a typewritten copy of the articles of incorporation was attached and made a part of the petition; that the building and improvements located at the above address are the headquarters of the corporation, and it is in this building that the Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. carry on their work, which is of a religious nature; that the building is used by the corporation directly and exclusively for religious purposes and is therefore exempt from taxation by reason of section 1, article 11 of our constitution, which is set out; that the plaintiffs herein received subscriptions of money from Christian people all over the state of Kansas and other parts of the country for the express purpose of erecting and equipping the building, and from the sums so collected plaintiffs constructed the building in 1946; that the Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. moved into and occupied the building after its completion and ever since its construction has been the sole occupant of the building; that after the completion of the building taxes were paid thereon for the year 1947; that on April 25, 1950, plaintiffs filed their application for relief from a tax grievance with the state commission of revenue and taxation asking that the property be declared exempt and removed from the tax rolls, setting forth in the application the reasons therefor; that the recommendation of the county clerk and the county assessor of Sedgwick county is a part of the application made, stating that the facts set forth in the application are true and recommending that the property be relieved from taxation and declared exempt; that a hearing was had upon the application on November 28, 1950, at which all members of the commission were present, and a certified transcript of the proceedings of the board of commission is attached to the petition; that at the time of the hearing permission was obtained to submit the affidavit of Doctor Winrod, president of the corporation, which was submitted on December 19, 1950, a copy of which is attached to the petition; that on January 2, 1951, the commission entered its order denying the application, a copy of which is attached; that the constitution and statutes of Kansas provide that property used exclusively for religious purposes shall be exempt from taxation; that under the undisputed testimony and evidence presented to the commission the property herein referred to is used for such religious purposes, and no other purpose; that no one opposed the application; that the commission, considering the evidence and affidavit submitted, had no discretion in the matter; that under the facts and the law the plaintiffs are entitled to have the property declared exempt and stricken from the tax rolls and to have a refund of the tax paid for the year 1948; that it was the clear legal duty of the commission to order the removal of the property from the tax rolls as exempt and order a refund of the tax paid for 1948; that the plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and that plaintiffs will suffer irreparable damage if the court does not make an order declaring the property exempt from taxation.
To this petition defendants filed an answer in which they admitted that the Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. is a Kansas corporation with its headquarters as designated in the petition, and admitted the various exhibits attached to the petition were correct copies of what they purported to be. The answer contained a general denial and a specific denial that the functions and activities of the plaintiff, Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc., are wholly religious in nature and that the property of the plaintiffs described is used exclusively, immediately and directly for religious purposes, and further alleged that following the filing of plaintiffs' application for tax relief from a tax grievance they caused an inspection of the property to be made to ascertain the use to which the property was being put; that a named attorney of the commission was appointed to make such inspection and to file a report with the commission; that the inspection was made and the report filed, a copy of which was attached to the answer. It was further alleged that plaintiffs cannot be afforded relief of their 1948 taxes for the reason plaintiffs had a completely adequate remedy at law which they had failed to pursue. It was further alleged that the property of plaintiffs, previously described, is not exempt under the constitution and statutes of the state of Kansas for the reason that it is not used exclusively, immediately and directly for religious purposes, and alleged plaintiffs stated no cause of action and are entitled to no relief either by refund of tax or exemption from future taxation. Plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The case was set for hearing in this court on the abstract, briefs and oral argument. At the hearing it became evident the motion for judgment on the pleadings could not be sustained for the reason the pleadings presented a controverted issue of fact, namely, whether the building in question is used exclusively for religious purposes. Counsel for plaintiffs suggested that this court appoint a commissioner to take the evidence and make suggested findings of fact and conclusions of law. Thereafter the court appointed Frank C. Baldwin, Esq., of Concordia, a member of the bar of this court, as its commissioner to hear the evidence and to make suggested conclusions of fact and of law and report to this court. That has been done and a copy of the report of the commissioner is attached hereto and marked Appendix 'A' of this opinion.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike certain of the findings of fact, or words or phrases therein, upon the ground that they were not sustained by the evidence, or for other reasons stated. We have examined this motion and find it not to be well taken. They also filed a motion to strike conclusions of law Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as being incorrect and contrary to the decisions in this state. We think these conclusions of law naturally follow from the findings of fact made by our commissioner.
Counsel for defendants filed a motion asking the court to approve the report of our commissioner and to render judgment for defendants. The case was again set for hearing in this court and was heard upon the original abstract and briefs and supplemental abstract and briefs and oral argument. Since the report of the commissioner is advisory only the court has examined the entire record and reached conclusions in harmony with those of our commissioner. Since the facts are fairly well stated in our commissioner's report we need not restate them more fully here.
Our statute, G.S.1949, 79-101, reads:
'That all property in this state, real and personal, not expressly exempt therefrom, shall be subject to taxation in the manner prescribed by this act.'
The portion of our constitution pertinent here, Art. 11, § 1, reads:
G.S.1949, 79-201 in part reads:
'That the property described in this section, to the extent herein limited, shall be exempt from taxation * * *.'
This is followed by thirteen subdivisions which pinpoint property exempt from taxation. Perhaps this section enlarges but does not restrict the general words used in our constitution above quoted. It is not seriously contended that any one of the subdivisions specifically enumerates as exempt the property sought to be held exempt in this action. Therefore the question before us is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of County Com'rs of Wyandotte County v. Kansas Ave. Properties
...Kan. 90, 402 P.2d 802 (1965); Kansas State Teachers Ass'n v. Cushman, 186 Kan. 489, 351 P.2d 19 (1960); Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. v. Horn, 174 Kan. 40, 254 P.2d 830 (1953); A.T. & S.F. Hospital Ass'n v. State Commission of Revenue & Taxation, 173 Kan. 312, 246 P.2d 299 (1952); ......
-
Midwest Solvents Co. v. State Commission of Revenue and Taxation, 40929
...rule, exemption is the exception and one claiming an exemption must clearly disclose his right thereto. Defender of the Christian Faith, Inc., v. Horn, 174 Kan. 40, 44, 254 P.2d 830; Sunday School Board of Southern Baptist Convention v. McCue, 179 Kan. 1, 293 P.2d The Kansas constitution, A......
-
Appeal of Wirt, 49869
...489, 351 P.2d 19 (1960); State, ex rel. v. Lawrence Woman's Club, 178 Kan. 308, 285 P.2d 770 (1955); Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. v. Horn, 174 Kan. 40, 254 P.2d 830 (1953); A. T. & S. F. Hospital Ass'n v. State Commission of Revenue & Taxation, 173 Kan. 312, 246 P.2d 299 (1952); M......
-
Board of Trustees of Kansas East Conference of United Methodist Church v. Cogswell, 46006
...81 Kan. 799, 106 P. 1005; Nuns of Third Order St. Dominic v. Younkin, 118 Kan. 554, 235 P. 869; and Defenders of the Christian Faith, Inc. v. Horn, 174 Kan. 40, 254 P.2d 830, tend upon first blush to support the position of the trial court-that the provisions of the constitution and the sta......