State ex rel. Hudson v. Acad. of Sci.

• Decision Date: 30 January 1883
• Citation: 13 Mo.App. 213
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. N. C. HUDSON, Respondent, v. ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ET AL., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

13 Mo.App. 213

STATE OF MISSOURI, EX REL. N. C. HUDSON, Respondent,

v.ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ET AL., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Jan. 30, 1883.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.

Reversed and remanded.

N. HOLMES and M. L. GRAY, for the appellants: The property was used for ““““purposes purely charitable” and was exempt from taxation.--Const. 1875, Art. X., sect. 6; Sess. Acts 1872, p. 84, sect. 3; Sess. Acts 1877, p. 393, sect. 1; Rev. Stats., sect. 6659; The State ex rel. v. Powers, 10 Mo. App. 263; s. c. 74 Mo. 476.

M. B. JONAS, for the respondent: The concession made to the Academy of Science, belongs to the class of law denominated privilegia favorabilia.-- Rector, etc., v. Philadelphia, 24 How. 300; Railroad Co. v. Georgia, 98 U. S. 365; Washington University v. Rowse, 42 Mo. 325; s. c. 75 U. S. 437, 438; East Hartford v. Bridge Co., 10 How. 511; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 561. It is true that, in general, constitutions, like statutes, are to be construed as prospective only; but when a contrary intent is plainly apparent a different construction will prevail.--Cooley on Const. Lim. 62; The State ex rel. v. Holliday, 66 Mo. 385. We may look to the occasion of the enactment of a law to ascertain if it be retro or prospective.-- The People v. Supervisors, 70 N. Y. 228; The People v. Supervisors, 43 N. Y. 132. That these sections may have a retrospective effect upon a privilege which is repealable, is of no moment, for the constitution of the United States does not prohibit a state from enacting retrospective laws which do not impair the obligation of a contract nor interfere with vested rights.-- Drehman v. Stefel, 41 Mo. 184. So far as “The Missouri Historical Society” is concerned, there is no privilege of exemption from taxation in its charter to be looked into.-- St. Louis v. Trust Co., 47 Mo. 150. Where an exemption from taxation is claimed, it must not be from presumption; the intention of the sovereign power to abandon this vital power must appear in clear and unequivocal terms.-- Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo. 21; Pacific R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17.

BAKEWELL, J. delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action begun on May 6, 1880, for back taxes. The taxes in question are state, city, and school taxes for the years 1877 and 1878, assessed against a lot in the city of St. Louis.

The answer of the Academy of Science admits that the lot in question is owned by it and by its co-defendant, the Missouri Historical Society, as tenants in common. The answer then sets up two special defences, the first of which is as follows:--

The Academy of Science was incorporated by Act of January 17, 1857 (Sess. Acts, 542), having for its objects the advancement of science and the establishment in St. Louis of a museum and library for the illustration and study of its various branches with perpetual succession for so long as it should answer the purposes of its creation, and was empowered by its charter to acquire, hold, etc., such property, real, etc., as it might deem proper for the purposes aforesaid. The charter provides that the members shall acquire no individual property in the real estate or other effects of the corporation, which are declared to be fully vested in the corporation as such, the interest of the members therein to be merely usufructuary. Whenever the corporation shall fail to answer the purposes of its creation, or suffer its charter to be forfeited, its cabinet collection and library shall become vested in the city of St. Louis to be deposited with some public institution of that city for general use. Thus, all the property of the corporation has ever been held and exclusively devoted to the purposes for which the academy was organized. This particular lot was a donation to the two co-defendants by deed of James H. Lucas and wife, dated June 8, 1872, duly recorded, etc., to hold for the purposes of the corporation, and has been ever since exclusively so held.

The second special defence is as follows:--

Besides the facts set out above, before the date of defendant's charter, there was a voluntary association called the Academy of Science of St. Louis, which owned a scientific library and museum acquired by gifts for scientific public purposes, and defendant's charter contained a provision that the property and effects of the association above named should, on acceptance of the charter, vest in the corporation thereby created, and that all property owned or held by the corporation shall be exempt from taxation so long as the same shall continue to be used in good faith for the objects aforesaid; whenever any real estate of the corporation shall be leased, the leasehold interest to be taxable to the lessee. At a meeting of defendant corporation, on February 9, 1857, this donation was accepted by a unanimous vote. The corporation has ever since acted under this charter; and by this transfer the property of this voluntary association, worth $2,000, was at once vested in defendant, and held by it for the uses aforesaid. In consideration of all which it was agreed between defendant and the state of Missouri, that all the property of defendant should be exempt from taxation so long as it was held and used by defendant in good faith for the purposes aforesaid, and this property is, and always has been, held and used by defendant solely for those purposes.

The answer of the Missouri Historical Society sets up its incorporation under the general corporation law as a benevolent, charitable, and educational association, originally organized there, and reorganized in 1880 with an amended charter, under article X chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of 1879, with perpetual succession for three hundred years. The object of the corporation is to institute historical inquiry in all its branches, including archæology and ethnology, especially as concerns St. Louis and the Mississippi Valley, and to receive, collect, and preserve historical evidence. The answer alleges a gift of the real estate in question to it and its co-defendant, the Academy of Science, by the same deed from Lucas and wife, and is generally similar to the answer of the other defendant.

Plaintiff demurred to these answers as setting up no facts constituting any defence. The demurrer was sustained. Defendants refused to plead further, and there was judgment according to the prayer of the petition for the taxes of both years, and interest, etc.

A gift designed to promote the public good by the encouragement of learning, science, and the useful arts, without any particular reference to the poor, and any gift for a beneficial public purpose not contrary to any declared policy of the law, is a charity. And, if such a gift is administered according to the intention of the donor, the property is used for charitable purposes. Adams' Eq. 172; American Academy of Arts v. Harvard College, 12 Gray, 582, 594. We have no doubt that the pleadings sufficiently set forth that the lot in question was used for purposes “purely charitable;” and that, upon the admitted facts of the case, the lot is now exempt from taxation under sections 6 and 7 of Article X of the constitution of 1875, and the statute of April 28, 1877, passed to give effect to these provisions, and exempting lots in incorporated towns or cities from taxation for state, county, or local purposes, when used for purposes purely charitable. The taxes for 1877 were assessed August, 1876, and the exemption act did not go into effect until July 30, 1877.

The constitution of 1865, provided that no property should be exempt from tax, except that used exclusively for public schools, and that which belonged to municipal corporations, counties, the state, or the United States. The constitution of 1875, adopted November 30th, of that year, provided that lots in cities or towns, to the extent of an acre,...