Temple Lodge No. 6 v. Tierney

• Decision Date: 15 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 3828.,3828.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
• Parties: TEMPLE LODGE NO. 6, A. F. & A. M.,v.TIERNEY, County Treasurer and Collector.

37 N.M. 178

20 P.2d 280

TEMPLE LODGE NO. 6, A. F. & A. M.,

v.TIERNEY, County Treasurer and Collector.

No. 3828.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 15, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

Rule of strict construction of tax exemption is not controlling in determining whether Masonic Lodge property is exempt from taxation (Const. art. 8, § 3).

Early official interpretation and uniform administration of tax exemption cannot be upset by courts, if reasonable (Const. art. 8, § 3).

Property of Masonic Lodge consisting of lots and temple containing lodge halls, club-rooms, offices, dining room, cloakrooms, etc., held used for “charitable purpose,” and therefore exempt from taxation (Comp. St. 1929, § 32-506; Const. art. 8, § 3).

1. Rule of strict construction of tax exemption provisions held not controlling of question whether Masonic Lodge property is “used for educational or charitable purposes” within meaning of N. M. Const. art. 8, § 3.

2. Early official interpretation and uniform administration of constitutional tax exemption held not to be upset by courts if reasonable.

3. Masonic use of property held “charitable” within meaning of N. M. Const. art. 8, § 3, and requiring tax exemption, under facts shown.

Appeal from District Court, Bernalillo County; Helmick, Judge.

Suit by Temple Lodge No. 6, A. F. & A. M., a corporation, against John Tierney, Treasurer and Collector of Bernalillo County. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions.

Property of Masonic Lodge consisting of lots and temple containing lodge halls, clubrooms, offices, dining room, cloakrooms, etc., held used for “charitable purpose,” and therefore exempt from taxation. Comp.St.1929, § 32-506; Const. art. 8, § 3.

Joseph Gill, of Albuquerque, E. R. Wright, of Santa Fé, and H. B. Holt, of Las Cruces, for appellant.

A. L. Zinn and J. D. Mell, both of Santa Fé, and C. V. Clayton, of Tularosa, for appellee.

WATSON, Chief Justice.

Appellant, a Masonic Lodge incorporated under 1929 Comp. St. § 32-506, authorizing the organization of “a corporation for religious, benevolent, charitable, scientific or literary purposes, or for the establishment of colleges, academies, seminaries, churches or libraries,” sues to enjoin collection of taxes assessed upon the Masonic Temple owned by it at Albuquerque. Its single contention is that said property is “used for educational or [and] charitable purposes,” within the meaning of N. M. Const. art. 8, § 3, and is accordingly exempt from taxation.

The material findings may be thus summarized:

According to appellant's articles of incorporation, it is a fraternal, benevolent, and charitable corporation. The property assessed consists of certain lots, and the Masonic Temple thereon, consisting of lodge halls, clubrooms, offices, dining room, cloakrooms, etc., used as the meeting place for the members of appellant lodge, another Masonic Lodge, a chapter of Royal Arch Masons, a Commandery of Knights Templar, a Temple of the Order of Mystic Shrine, and for the organizations De Molay, Job's Daughters, Eastern Star, and White Shrine; the facilities of the building being primarily for the use of Freemasons and their families in which to carry on the functions, work and objects of Masonry.

Appellant issues no capital stock, declares no dividends; its members derive no pecuniary profits from its operation, and are guaranteed no benefits of any kind. Appellant's revenues come from $12 annual dues, paid by its approximately eight hundred members, from initiation fees, from contributions in the nature of rent from some of the other above-mentioned Masonic bodies, and from gifts, devises, and bequests. Appellant's ownership of the property is in the nature of a trust. It is a constituent of the Grand Lodge of Masons of New Mexico, to which all of its property would devolve in the event of its dissolution.

We quote now findings 11 and 12:

“The educational feature of plaintiff's work consists of a course of training in Freemasonry by class room methods. The fraternity is in itself a system of teaching, designed to make men more efficient in their professions, more useful to society, better in morality, and more faithful citizens. The Masonic ritual itself is a system of teachings of a historical, philosophical, ethical, æsthetic, and religious character. These teachings are binding on every member. One purpose of the lodge communications is continuously to expound and explain and enforce these teachings among its members. The literature of Masonry deals largely with all general cultural purposes and is made public. The lodge has lecturers and other speakers who speak on various occasions on many subjects of general importance, and distributes literature to its members and fosters loans of money to students to help them pursue their college courses.

“The charitable feature of plaintiff's work consists of relief to fellow members in need by individual members of the lodge. If the individual cannot meet that need it is referred to the lodge. If it exceeds the lodge's ability, the case is taken up by the Grand Lodge. The whole Masonic system is organized between the grand jurisdictions so as to give relief to every case where needed. Nothing is left to chance or caprice or accident. The lodge gives financial, medical, surgical or other aid to needy wives, widows and dependents of members, shares in supporting public charities, gives welfare service to many in hospitals and sanatoriums, helps to send children to the Shriner's Crippled Children's Hospitals, and gives relief in public calamities, such as the Mississippi and Galveston floods and the Florida tornado.”

The trial judge refused the following requested finding No. 9:

“Plaintiff devotes its money to defraying the expenses and upkeep of its property, to pay the indebtedness thereon and for charitable, educational, social and fraternal purposes, and to carry out its civic duties to the community.”

As we understand, however, the difference between the court and counsel was in the characterization of the purposes as “charitable, educational, social and fraternal.” We do not think that the court meant that there was any use of appellant's money other than in defraying the expenses and upkeep of its property, paying the indebtedness thereon, and for the appropriate objects of Masonry, whether deemed mainly educational, charitable, or social.

The question before us is whether the learned trial judge was warranted, in view of these findings, in a refusal to conclude that the property is used for educational and charitable purposes, and entitled to exemption. This depends upon the meaning of the constitutional provision just referred to:

“The property of the United States, the state and all counties, towns, cities and school districts, and other municipal corporations, public libraries, community ditches and all laterals thereof, all church property, all property used for educational or charitable purposes, all cemeteries not used or held for private or corporate profit, and all bonds of the state of New Mexico, and of the counties, municipalities and districts thereof shall be exempt from taxation.” Article 8, § 3.

It should be noted at the outset that few states have constitutional or statutory provisions more favorable to a claim of exemption under facts such as we have here, and that most states have less liberally provided.

Educational or charitable use, or ownership by educational or charitable organizations, are common grounds of exemption. But generally some qualifying language has been employed, such as “exclusively used,” “devoted to the sole use,” “public charity,” or “purely public charity.”

Where such modifying expressions have been employed, judicial opinion appears divided, though a weight of authority could perhaps be claimed in favor of exemption. But where the controlling statutory or constitutional provision approaches ours in liberality, and upon similar facts, there can scarcely be said to be a difference of view. The following decisions seem to us to support appellant's contentions: Ancient and A. S. R. of Freemasonry v. Bd. of County Com'rs, 122 Neb. 586, 241 N. W. 93, 81 A. L. R. 1166, holding a Scottish Rite Temple exempt as “property owned and used exclusively for educational, religious, charitable *** purposes, when *** not owned or used for financial gain or profit to either the owner or user”; Morrow v. Smith, 145 Iowa, 514, 124 N. W. 316, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 696, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 1183, holding a devise to a Masonic Lodge exempt from collateral inheritance tax, as made to a “charitable institution” (see Ann. Cas. note); Horton v. Colorado Springs Masonic Bldg. Soc., 64 Colo. 529, 173 P. 61, 62, L. R. A. 1918E, 966, holding a Masonic Temple exempt, as “used solely and exclusively for *** strictly charitable purposes”; Board of Com'rs v. San Luis Valley Masonic Ass'n, 80 Colo. 183, 250 P. 147; Cumberland Lodge v. Nashville, 127 Tenn. 248, 154 S. W. 1141, 1143, holding Masonic property exempt as “property belonging to any *** charitable *** or educational institution *** used exclusively for the purpose for which said institution was created”; In re Masonic Temple Society, 90 W. Va. 441, 111 S. E. 637, 639, 22 A. L. R. 892, holding the property exempt as used “for educational, literary, scientific *** [or] charitable purposes” (see note); Salt Lake Lodge v. Groesbeck, 40 Utah, 1, 120 P. 192, 193, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 946, holding an Elks Lodge and club rooms exempt as “used exclusively for *** charitable purposes.”

The decisions cited and relied on by appellee will be found listed in the annotation, “Exemption from taxation of property of fraternal or relief association,” in 22 A. L. R. under the heading, “Cases holding property not exempt,” at page 912.

Included in this list are certain decisions involving mutual benefit societies, and associations of that nature,...