El Jebel Shrine Ass'n v. McGlone

• Decision Date: 09 October 1933
• Docket Number: 12771.
• Citation: 26 P.2d 108,93 Colo. 334
• Parties: EL JEBEL SHRINE ASS'N v. McGLONE et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

26 P.2d 108

93 Colo. 334

EL JEBEL SHRINE ASS'N v. McGLONE et al.

No. 12771.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

October 9, 1933

Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C Sackmann, Judge.

Action by El Jebel Shrine Association against William F. McGlone substituted for Clem W. Collins, Manager of Revenue, Ex Officio Assessor and Ex Officio Treasurer of the City and County of Denver, and another. To review an adverse judgment plaintiff brings error.

Judgment vacated and set aside.

Edwin H. Park and George P. Winters, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas H. Gibson, George Hetherington, James D. Parriott, Frederick P. Cranston, and R. C. Hecox, Jr., all of Denver, for defendants in error.

CAMPBELL Justice.

This controversy is between the plaintiff, El Jebel Shrine Association, a corporation, and the defendants, the manager of revenue and ex officio county assessor and treasurer of the City and County of Denver, and E. M. Hills, as to whether or not certain property of the association is or is not exempt from general property taxation. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was incorporated as a holding corporation for the use and benefit of El Jebel Shrine Temple of the Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine for North America, a mutual, fraternal, benevolent, and charitable organization. The complaint further alleges that the Shrine Temple is a branch of an international organization created and maintained solely for fraternal, recreational, benevolent, and charitable purposes, and that its activities are not confined to members of the local organization, but apply also to the membership generally throughout the United States and to Masonic fraternities generally; that it is supported entirely from dues contributed by its local members, and the entire proceeds are devoted to its fraternal and charitable uses and purposes. The complaint further specifically charges that all the property of the plaintiff is used and employed for such benevolent and charitable purposes, and that the property in question was acquired for such purposes and is held for such use, and that it is the intent and purpose to complete a structure and buildings upon said lots to be used for such charitable purposes, and that the foundation for such building has been constructed at an expense of approximately $50,000. The complaint further alleges that title to such property was acquired by plaintiff more than ten years ago and such property was exempted from taxation by the tax officers of the City and County of Denver and so remained upon the exemption list until about the month of July, 1929, when the defendant assessor wrongfully and without warrant of law placed the same upon the tax list at a valuation of about $35,000, and proceeded to, and did, levy and assess a tax against the same of over $1,100 for the taxes of the year 1928. To this complaint, the substance of which is above set forth, the trial court sustained defendants' general demurrer. Under well-established principles of pleading, the general demurrer to the complaint confesses and admits as true the facts which we have above summarized.

Section 5 of article 10 of our Constitution reads: 'Lots, with the buildings thereon, if said buildings are used solely and exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or for strictly charitable purposes, * * * shall be exempt from taxation.' The statutes of Colorado which have been enacted to carry out the purpose of this constitutional provision substantially follow the language of the Constitution itself. The decisions of the courts of last resort of the states of the Union are not uniform as to the scope and effect of statutory and constitutional provisions in substantially the same or similar language contained in our Constitution and statute upon this subject. The courts of some of the states interpret such provisions strictly and others liberally. Our own decisions unquestionably are liberal. Among other cases are Colorado Seminary v. Board of Com'rs of Arapahoe County, 30 Colo. 507, 71 P 410; Cathedral of St. John, etc., v. Treasurer of Arapahoe County, 29 Colo. 143, 68 P. 272; Horton v. Colorado Springs Masonic Bldg. Society, 64 Colo. 529, 534, 173 P. 61, L.R.A. 1918E, 966; Board of Commissioners v. San Luis Valley Masonic Association, 80 Colo. 183, 250 P. 147, and Denver Turnverein v. McGlone, 91 Colo. 473, 15 P.2d 709. The argument of counsel for the defendants in error, which, in substance, is a plea for the adoption by this court of the strict rule of construction, which, if approved, would be contrary to our previous decisions on this important...