San Antonio Conservation Soc., Inc. v. City of San Antonio

• Decision Date: 27 May 1970
• Docket Number: No. B-1928,B-1928
• Citation: 455 S.W.2d 743
• Parties: SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO et al., Respondents.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 743

455 S.W.2d 743

SAN ANTONIO CONSERVATION SOCIETY, INC., Petitioner, v. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO et al., Respondents.

No. B-1928.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 27, 1970.

Rehearing Denied July 8, 1970.

Harvey L. Hardy, San Antonio, for petitioner.

Howard C. Walker, City Atty., Crawford B. Reeder, Asst. City Atty., San Antonio, for respondents.

POPE, Justice.

This appeal concerns the constitutionality of Sections 20 and 22 of Article 7150, Vernon's Tex.Civ.St. The City of San Antonio and the San Antonio Independent School District, hereafter called City, sued the San Antonio Conservation Society, Inc., to recover ad valorem taxes assessed against property known as the Navarro House, which the Society owns. Since the City sought to recover taxes for the years 1964 through 1967 and Section 22 was not effective at that time, we are concerned only with Section 20. The trial court rendered judgment that the Society's property was exempt from ad valorem taxes because it was a purely public charity. The court of civil appeals was of the view that Section 20, in exempting historical buildings and sites, is unconstitutional and violates the requirement of Section 2, Article VIII of the Texas Constitution which limits tax exemptions to institutions of purely public charity. 448 S.W.2d 528. We hold that the Navarro House meets the statutory and constitutional tests for exemption.

The parties stipulated that the Society is a non-profit organization which is chartered for the purpose of preserving historical buildings and sites, the Society is operated in fact as such, and the Navarro House is a genuine historical site and is exclusively used by the Society for that purpose. The Society has not leased nor otherwise used the Navarro House with a view to profit. The Society bought the house to avoid its demolition and then restored it at a total cost of about $91,000.00, and the house is used as an historical museum for the benefit of all the public. Jose Navarro was a native Texas hero before, during, and after the Texas Revolution and served Texas as one of its great public figures for many years. ¹

Section 2 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution, omitting the exemption provision which are not here relevant, provides:

'All occupation taxes shall be equal and uniform upon the same class of subjects within the limits of the authority levying the tax; but the legislature may, by general laws, exempt from taxation * * * institutions of purely public charity; and all laws exempting property from taxation other than the property above mentioned shall be null and void.' Vernon's Texas Constitution.

The Texas Legislature, pursuant to the constitutional limitation, promptly enacted laws which exempted the properties named by the constitution, including 'institutions of purely public charity.' It was not until 1905, however, that the Legislature undertook to define that phrase more fully. Acts 29th Leg., ch. 127, pp. 314-315, presently Sec. 7, Art. 7150. Since that time, subsequent Legislatures have amended the definition to afford exemptions to personal property belonging to institutions of public charity, and more recently to include nonprofit institutions organized for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals. The Legislature has not only enlarged, from time to time, the definition of the term by amendments to section 7; the Legislature has also added additional sections to Article 7150. Section 20 was enacted in 1955. Acts, 1955, 54th Leg., ch. 271, p 752. Sections 7 and 20, Article 7150, omitting irrelevant portions, provide:

Art. 7150. 'The following property shall be exempt from taxation, to-wit:

'7. Public Charities. All buildings and personal property belonging to institutions of purely public charity, together with the lands belonging to and occupied by such institutions * * * not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit, unless such rents and profits and all moneys and credits are appropriated by such institutions solely to sustain such institutions and for the benefit of the sick and disabled members and their families and the burial of the same, or for the maintenance of persons when unable to provide for themselves, whether such persons are members of such institutions or not. An institution of purely public charity under this article is one which dispenses its aid to its members and others in sickness or distress, or at death, without regard to poverty or riches of the recipient, also when funds, property and assets of such institutions are placed and bound by its law to relieve, aid and administer in any way to the relief of its members when in want, sickness and distress, and provide homes for its helpless and dependent members and to educate and maintain the orphans of its deceased members or other persons; * * *.'

'20. '* * * Hereafter all buildings, together with the lands belonging to and occupied by such organizations known as The American Legion, American Veterans of World War II, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Disabled American Veterans, Jewish War Veterans and Catholic War Veterans, or any non-profit organization chartered or incorporated under the Texas Statutes for the purpose of preserving historical buildings, sites and landmarks, not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit, shall be exempt from taxation in this State. * * *.'

We must first decide whether Section 7 provides the exclusive definition and meaning to the term 'institution of purely public charity.' This is the City's contention. If Section 7 is not the exclusive definition, we must decide whether an institution which owns an historical building and site may be a purely public charity within the constitutional meaning of the term. If Section 7 provides the exclusive definition of the term, the Navarro House is not exempt under certain rules announced by this court in City of Houston v. Scottish Rite Benev. Ass'n, 111 Tex. 191, 230 S.W. 978 (1921), and Santa Rosa Infirmary v. City of San Antonio, 259 S.W. 926 (Tex.Comm.App., 1924). Those cases were recently reviewed and discussed in Hilltop Village, Inc. v. Kerrville Ind. School District, 426 S.W.2d 943 (Tex.Sup.1968).

Section 7 concerns and defines charity in the sense of almsgiving and the three cases cited above state rules which an institution must meet to qualify for that kind of charity. Those cases arose by reason of claims that the institutions in question provided relief to the needy, the sick, and the distressed; and in doing so relieved the government of burdens it would otherwise be charged with solving.

In River Oaks Garden Club v. City of Houston, 370 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Sup.1963), we again wrote on the subject of institutions which claimed an exemption under Art. 7150. There, as in the present case, the right to exemption was asserted under sections other than Section 7. The Garden Club claimed an exemption under Section 14 which concerned the fine arts and Section 20 which included historical sites. We denied the claimed exemption, but we did not do so because Sections 14 and 20 authorized charities which were different from the almsgiving type defined in Section 7 or because Section 7 was the exclusive basis for the claim that an institution was one of purely public charity. We held that the benefits of the Garden Club were no more than benefits to its society. We said, '* * * its main activity is to educate and enlighten its members, and such other persons as care to attend its meetings or read its book * * *.' In support of our decision, we quoted and grounded our decision upon this rule which we had also announced in Scottish Rite:

"Charity need not be universal to be public. It is public when it affects all the people of a community or state, by assuming, to a material extent, that which otherwise might become the obligation or duty of the community or the state."

The Conservation Society relies upon Section 20 which the Legislature enacted in 1955, Acts 1955, 54th Leg., ch. 271, p. 752. It is our opinion that the 1905 Legislature by the enactment of what is now substantially the same as Section 7, did not bind its will upon subsequent legislatures. Cooley, Constitutional Law, ch. IV, § 1, (4th ed.); 1 Sutherland Statutory Construction, § 2003 (3rd ed.1943). The Legislature by its later enactment of Section 20 intended to add to or change the existing law and that section will be given effect provided it otherwise meets the constitutional prohibitions concerning exemptions. Independent Life Ins. Co. of America v. Work, 124 Tex. 281, 77 S.W.2d 1036 (1934); American Surety Co. v. Axtell Co., 120 Tex. 166, 36 S.W.2d 715 (1931); Texas Bank & Trust Co. v. Austin, 115 Tex. 201, 280 S.W. 161 (1926); 53 Tex.Jur.2d, Statutes, § 187.

We must now determine whether the preservation of the Navarro House affords a purely public charity within the meaning of the constitutional use of that term. We must measure the benefits to the whole public against the rule announced in Scottish Rite and restated in River Oaks Garden Club. That rule is: 'It is public when it affects all the people of a community or state by assuming, to a material extent, that which otherwise might become the obligation or duty of the community or ...