State ex rel. Waller v. Trustees of William Jewell College

• Decision Date: 19 April 1911
• Citation: 136 S.W. 397,234 Mo. 299
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. GEORGE C. WALLER, Collector, Appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

136 S.W. 397

234 Mo. 299

THE STATE ex rel. GEORGE C. WALLER, Collector, Appellant, v. TRUSTEES OF WILLIAM JEWELL COLLEGE

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 19, 1911

Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. -- Hon. J. W. Alexander, Judge.

Affirmed.

Ralph Hughes and Sebree, Conrad & Wendorff for appellant.

(1) The language of the Act of February 22, 1851, under which defendant claims its personal property is exempt from taxation, must be taken in its ordinary and usual sense, and when so read, clearly refers to real estate and not to personal property. R. S. 1899, sec. 4160; Standard Dictionary; Century Dictionary; 1 Cooley's Blackstone (3 Ed.) 14; 18 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 140, 711; 24 Cyc. 842 843; State ex rel. v. Wilder, 206 Mo. 549; 14 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 1114; 27 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law, 541. (2) Statutes exempting property from taxation must be strictly construed; nothing should be held exempt by implication. 1 Cooley on Taxation (3 Ed.) 356-357; State ex rel. v Casey, 210 Mo. 235; Fitterer v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 51; City of Kansas v. Medical College, 111 Mo 141; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Tennessee, 161 U.S. 174; Adelphia Lodge v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 356; State ex rel. v. Johnson, 241 Mo. 657. (3) The mistake of taxing officers in failing to have property taxed, is no estoppel on the State, nor has it any effect in construing the statute. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 670; Railroad v. Dennis, 116 U.S. 665; Hibernian Society v. Kelly, 28 Ore. 173; R. S. 1899, secs. 9199, 9200. (4) The Act of 1851, exempting defendant's lands from taxation, was repealed. Grand Lodge v. New Orleans, 166 U.S. 143.

W. M. Williams and Warner, Dean, McLeod & Timmonds for respondent.

(1) There was no constitutional prohibition in 1851 against the exemption of college property from taxation. It was clearly within the power of the Legislature to grant the exemption contained in the Act of February 22, 1851. State ex rel. v. Westminster College, 175 Mo. 60; St. Vincent's College v. Schaefer, 104 Mo. 261; Scotland County v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 123. (2) The word "land" was used by the Legislature in the Act of 1851 in the sense of "property." "The letter of a statute may be enlarged or restrained according to the intent of the framers of the law. In such cases the reason of the law prevails over its letter." Laws 1851, p. 64; Andrew County v. Kirtley, 135 Mo. 31; Bryant v. Russell, 127 Mo. 422; Hale v. Stimson, 198 Mo. 165; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1; Lewis's Sutherland on Statutory Construction (2 Ed.), secs. 348, 376 and 379. (3) "For the purpose of ascertaining the intent of the lawmaker, a court is not confined exclusively to the language of the statute, although its language must be given due weight, but should consider as well the circumstances that led to its adoption and the evils it was designed to remedy." Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 670; State ex rel. v. Swanger, 190 Mo. 561. (4) The officers of the State charged with the execution and enforcement of its revenue laws, for more than a half century construed such laws as exempting the property of the college from taxation. "The general understanding of a law and constant practice under it for a period of over twenty [here fifty] years by all officers charged with the execution of it, unquestioned by any public or private action, is strong, if not conclusive, evidence of the true meaning." Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo. 710; Pennoyer v. McConnaugh, 140 U.S. 23; Scanlan v. Childs, 33 Wis. 663; Packard v. Richardson, 17 Mass. 144; Venable v. Railroad, 112 Mo. 103; Ross v. Railroad, 111 Mo. 25. (5) "Public policy is a hand-maiden of sound legal exposition." The Constitution of 1820 declared that "schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged in this State." It was the public policy of Missouri at the time of the passage of the Act of 1851 to encourage the organization and establishment of colleges and institutions of learning and to promote their welfare by relieving them from, rather than imposing burdens upon them. The early Session Acts contain abundant evidence that the policy of the State was to relieve educational institutions, not conducted for private benefit or gain, from the burdens of taxation. Hale v. Stimson, 198 Mo. 165; Yale University v. New Haven, 71 Conn. 316. (6) In endeavoring to ascertain the legislative intent in passing the act in question, it is proper to look at other charters granted by the State about the same time to educational institutions, practically all of which were exempted from all taxation, and probably the universal construction of the charters and acts relating to the various colleges in this State organized prior to 1875, has been exempting them from taxation. (7) "The same strictness of construction will not be indulged where the exemption is as to religious, scientific, literary and educational institutions, that will be applied in considering exemptions of corporations created and operating for private gain and profit." State v. Fiske University, 87 Tenn. 233; Indianapolis v. Grand Master, 25 Ind. 518; People v. Tax Commissioner, 11 Hun, 505 Northampton v. Lehigh University, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. R. 659; Cassiano v. Urslin University, 64 Tex. 673; Railroad v. Gaines, 3 F. 266; People ex rel. v. Benevolent Assn., 43 Hun, 314. The Act of 1851 was not repealed by the Constitution of 1865 or the Constitution of 1875. The constitutional provisions prohibiting exemptions were prospective and not retrospective in their operation. Scotland County v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 123; State ex rel. v. County Court, 41 Mo. 453; State ex rel. v. County Court, 51 Mo. 522; State ex rel. v. Westminster College, 175 Mo. 52. (9) The Act of 1851 was accepted by the defendant and many donations were made to its endowment thereafter. The college was subsequently enlarged and its work greatly extended. The consideration for the act was the benefit to be derived by the State from the maintenance and enlargement of this institution of learning, and, after it was accepted and acted upon by the defendant, it constituted an irrepealable contract between the State and the college. State ex rel. v. Westminster College, 175 Mo. 52; St. Vincent's College v. Schaefer, 104 Mo. 267; Washington University v. Rowes, 8 Wall. 439; Home of the Friendless v. Rowes, 8 Wall. 830.

GRAVES, J. Lamm, J., concurs; Woodson and Brown, JJ., concur in separate opinions filed; Valliant, C. J., and Ferriss and Kennish, JJ., dissent in opinion to be filed.

OPINION

In Banc.

GRAVES J.

This is an action by the collector of Clay county by which it is sought to collect from defendant certain State, county, school and other taxes alleged to be due upon personal property owned or held by defendant. Defendant filed answer, the necessary portions of which will be noted as required in the course of the opinion.

Plaintiff offered in evidence the back taxbill and rested the case. Defendant then offered an agreed statement of facts as follows:

"In the trial of the above entitled cause it is hereby agreed between the parties plaintiff and defendant that the following facts are true, reserving, however, to each party the right to object to the introduction of any one or all of such agreed facts on the ground of its or their irrelevancy inadmissibility or incompetency, to-wit:

"1. That defendant is an educational corporation duly organized under and by virtue of an act of the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, approved February 27, 1849, entitled 'An Act to Charter a College in the State of Missouri,' found in the Laws of Missouri of the year 1849, passed by the 15th General Assembly of said State, at page 232, 233 and 234.

"2. That said defendant acquired its name, to-wit, 'Trustees of William Jewell College,' and its college, 'William Jewell College,' was located in the town, now city, of Liberty, in Clay county, Missouri, on August 21, 1849, and a certificate, showing said name and location, was filed in the office of the recorder of deeds for Clay county, Missouri, on August 25, 1849, in accordance with the provisions of said act approved February 27, 1849.

"3. At the date of the passage of the act which defendant claims exempts it from taxation, to-wit, February 22, 1851, defendant had no endowment in personal property. The endowment at that date, possessed by defendant, consisted solely of the real estate mentioned in said Act of February 22, 1851.

"4. That at and ever since said date of February 22, 1851, defendant accepted said act and has since, and is now engaged in the work of education and maintaining said college at Liberty in the State of Missouri. And all its property, real and personal was, and is now being used for that purpose exclusively, and not for the purpose of private gain or emolument to the defendant, or any person or corporation.

"5. That by the name 'William Jewell College' in the title and first section of the Act of the General Assembly, approved February 22, 1851, found in the Laws of Missouri of the year 1851, at pages 64 and 65, is meant said defendant, 'The Trustees of William Jewell College.'

"6. That said defendant has since February 22, 1851, sold the lands mentioned in said act of that date except the land used as its college campus in Clay county, Missouri, and the proceeds derived therefrom were turned into its general endowment fund. That since that date and prior to the assessment of the taxes herein sued for, defendant has received its gifts and bequests of money for its educational endowment, and derived from the sale or proceeds of its real estate, personal property greater in amount than the assessment on which the taxes sued for in this case are claimed to be levied, and that it had in its possession said personal property as a part of its...