Masonic Bldg. Ass'n of Stamford, Conn., Inc. v. Town of Stamford

• Citation: 119 Conn. 53,174 A. 301
• Parties: MASONIC BLDG. ASS'N OF STAMFORD, CONN., Inc., v. TOWN OF STAMFORD (four cases).
• Decision Date: 27 July 1934
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

174 A. 301

119 Conn. 53

MASONIC BLDG. ASS'N OF STAMFORD, CONN., Inc., v. TOWN OF STAMFORD (four cases).

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 27, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.

Appeals by the Masonic Building Association of Stamford, Conn., Inc. from the action of the Board of Relief of the Town of Stamford in refusing to reduce the assessors' valuation of appellant's property on the lists of 1929 to 1932 inclusive. From judgments for the town after trial to the court, the Association appeals.

No error.

James E. Brinckerhoff and Charles R. Covert, both of Stamford, for appellant.

Thomas J. Ryle and Peter J. Ryan, both of Stamford, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, BANKS, and AVERY JJ.

MALTBIE, Chief Justice.

These are appeals by the plaintiff from the refusal of the board of relief of the town of Stamford to reduce assessments for taxation made against its property in the years 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. The property consists of a lot of land in Stamford upon which stands a Masonic temple. The finding discloses the following facts: The plaintiff is a corporation without capital stock under the laws of this State, organized and inspired by members of the Masonic fraternity in Stamford. The purpose stated in its articles of association is to erect and maintain in that town a suitable building for the use and benefit of the Masonic fraternity. With funds secured by gifts from the Blue Lodges in Stamford and members of the order and by a mortgage on its property it bought land and erected the temple. The corporation holds all its property for the use and benefit of the Masonic fraternity in Stamford and there is an exact identity between the two. A portion of the temple amounting to 65 per cent., is devoted exclusively to Masonic purposes, and from it the plaintiff derives no revenue. The remainder is occupied by an auditorium a kitchen, bowling alleys, a billiard room and the like, and from these a small income is derived.

There are three Blue Lodges in Stamford, comprising the entire Masonic fraternity there. These Blue Lodges, with others in the state, are subordinate to the Grand Lodge, which consists of representatives of the Blue Lodges. Aside from gifts, the Grand Lodge derives all its support from the Blue Lodges. In connection with it and identical in membership is the Masonic Charity Foundation, the sole object of which is to care for members of the order and the related organization of Eastern Star, their wives, widows, mothers and children, who are in need of assistance. Eight-tenths of the revenue of the Grand Lodge is contributed to the foundation. Each Blue Lodge is compelled by the laws of the order to contribute stated sums for the support of the Grand Lodge. Aside from the charities of the foundation, each Blue Lodge carries on such charities as are necessary and required. No contract relationship exists between any Mason and his lodge, the Grand Lodge, or the foundation. Masonic law forbids any distribution of the funds or property of any Lodge, the Grand Lodge, or the foundation among the members of the order, nor can any officer or member receive any part of such funds or property except as reasonable compensation for services rendered or as a proper beneficiary of their charities; and, if a Blue Lodge dissolves, its property reverts to the Grand Lodge. The Blue Lodges are secret fraternal orders, to join which the applicant must pass certain tests and be voted on by the members; and rejections are not infrequent if the wrong character of man applies.

In addition to these facts, the finding describes in considerable detail the theory and practice of Masonry, but it suffices for the disposition of this case to summarize these findings. They effectually establish that Masonry, basically and ritualistically, is religious in purpose and spirit, that it is educational in the broad sense of that term, and that it is characterized by a spirit of charity and benevolence. If the statutes granting exemptions from taxation were broad enough in their terms to include the property of every organization which is educational in a broad sense, which is characterized by benevolence and charity, and which inculcates in its members a spirit of worship and reverence for the Deity, Masonic lodges might well claim their benefit. The provisions of the statutes are, however, precise, and the question is whether they evince a legislative intent sufficiently broad to include the property of the plaintiff. The defendant claims that, even though the property of Masonic lodges might be exempt within the meaning of the statutes, yet the plaintiff, a corporation not itself a part of the order, holding its property upon a trust not appearing of public record, should not be included, but these contentions we do not find it necessary to consider.

The origin of exemptions from taxation in this state is found in the Statute of Charitable Uses first adopted in 1684 and rephrased in 1702, to provide that lands or other hereditaments given or granted for the " ministry of the Gospel *** or schools of learning, or for the relief of poor people, or for any other public and charitable use," should forever remain devoted to such uses and be exempted out of the general list of the state and free from the payment of taxes. 3 Col. Rec. p. 58; Laws of 1702, p. 64. In the Revision of 1821 the provision for this exemption was dropped from this statute and seems not to have been given any place elsewhere in the statutes, an omission which was repaired in 1822 by the enactment of a statute exempting portions of buildings used as colleges, academies, schoolhouses, churches, and infirmaries. Statutes of 1835, p. 528. In 1851 to this provision another was added exempting all buildings belonging to scientific, literary, benevolent, or ecclesiastical societies, used exclusively for scientific, literary, and benevolent purposes. Public Acts 1851, c. 47, § 6. In 1871 the adjective " public" was inserted before the word " schoolhouses." Public Acts 1871, c. 59. These provisions were thereafter continued in the statutes until 1925 in substantially the same terms, except that from the provision concerning buildings belonging to scientific, literary, benevolent, or ecclesiastical societies certain exemptions were made, not germane to our inquiry, and a specific exemption of musical instruments used exclusively by churches and of the investments of ecclesiastical societies was added. General Statutes 1918, § § 1160, 1166; Public Acts 1921, c. 109.

In 1925 began a series of changes in these provisions. Public Acts 1925, c. 245; Public Acts 1929, c. 24; Revision of 1930 § § 1163, 1165. In 1929 and since the statutes have exempted real property owned by and held in trust for, a Connecticut corporation organized exclusively for scientific, educational, literary, historical, or charitable purposes or for two or more of such purposes and used exclusively for carrying out one or more of such purposes and the personal property owned by or held in trust for any such corporation, provided that no officer, member, or employee receives, or at any future time shall receive, any pecuniary profit in the portions thereof so...