State v. Macgurn

• Decision Date: 15 March 1905
• Citation: 187 Mo. 238,86 S.W. 138
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HAMMER, Collector, v. MACGURN et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

86 S.W. 138

187 Mo. 238

STATE ex rel. HAMMER, Collector, v. MACGURN et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 15, 1905.

TAXATION—EXEMPTION.

A lot leased at an annual rental by the owner of the fee to a school board, to be used for school purposes, is not within Const. art. 10, § 6, and Rev. St. 1899, § 9119, providing that lots in incorporated cities, used exclusively for school purposes, shall be exempt from taxation.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Warkneck Hough, Judge.

Action by the state, on the relation of L. F. Hammer, Jr., collector, etc., against Fannie R. Macgurn and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Daniel Dillon, for appellant. Johnson, Houts, Marlatt & Hawes, for respondent.

MARSHALL, J.

This is an action to recover $266.82, with interest, back taxes for the years 1896, 1897, and 1898 upon lot 9 of Christian Brothers' Addition to the city of St. Louis. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendants appealed.

The action is against the owners of the fee and the trustee and cestui que trust of a deed of trust thereon. The petition is in the usual and proper form. The answer is that during all the years for which taxes were assessed and sought to be recovered against the land the property was situated in St. Louis, was less than an acre in extent, and was used exclusively for school purposes, and hence was exempt from taxation. The reply is a general denial.

The facts are that on November 15, 1894, the owners of the fee leased all the lot, except a stable on the rear thereof, to the board of president and directors of the St. Louis public schools for a term ending on July 10, 1897, at a rental of $900 a year, and that it was used as a branch of the Dozier School. The stable in the rear was rented, at the date of the lease, to a butcher, for $7 or $8 a month. On the 10th of December, 1895, the lessee, the public schools, objected to the stable and "the nuisance of having the yard used as a common passageway and for washing vehicles and general stable purposes," and the lessor put out the butcher, and thereafter the whole property was used exclusively by the public schools.

1. The legal question in this case is, what is meant by section 6 of article 10 of the Constitution, and of section 7504, Rev. St. 1889 (now section 9119, Rev. St. 1899), which provide that "lots in incorporated cities, * * * when the same are used exclusively for religious worship, for schools," etc., shall be exempt from taxation? The defendants claim that it is the use, and not the ownership, which determines whether the property is exempt. The plaintiff contends that quoad the plaintiff the property was not used for school purposes, but for private profit and gain, because the plaintiff rented the same, and derived a revenue of $75 a month therefrom. The defendants contend that the cases of Wyman v. St. Louis, 17 Mo. 335, Fitterer v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 51, 57 S. W. 532, 50 L. R. A. 191, and Adelphia Lodge v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 358, 57 S. W. 1020, are inapplicable to this case, because in those cases the property was not used exclusively for school or charitable purposes, but a part of it was rented out for other purposes. This is true, and those cases are valuable in this case only so far as the underlying principles therein announced are pertinent to the case at bar. It is also true, as defendants claim, that cases from sister states must be read in the light of the Constitutions and statutes of those states, and proper allowance must be made for the differences, if any, between such Constitutions and statutes and the Constitution and statutes of this state. So that, after all, the real question in this case depends upon what is meant by the term "used exclusively for...