The Portland daily press., 1882-05-09
In Dalawara Conntu Institnta 81 nalaware

l
| County, Weekly notes of cases PENN 449,
1t was held that an institute of science, whose
object was the promotion of general and scien-
tine knowledge among the community at large
but whose benefits were restricted to its MEM
bers, except at the pleasure of itss managers,
was not purely public charity, and was not
exempt from taxation as such. "The plaintiff
In error" observes the Court, $50 far from be-
ing purely public charity, is not public
charity at all 1t is private corporation for
the benefit of its members, as much as any 9TH
or beneficial and literary society" 1t will be
observed that other than members were allow
ed, or might be allowed, to participate in all
the benefits of the assoclation-not SO with
Masonic lodges, whose masonic privileges"
and benevolence are limited and restricted to
Its members and families.
A charitable institution to be exempted from
taxation must be q purely charitable one.
Humphrey VS.. Little Sisters sof the Poor, 20
| Ohio 206 The gift or bequest must be for
strictly charitable purposes, else the trust will
| not be enforced. Thompsons EXITS VS.. Norris.
| The funds of the defendant corporation may
| and are, as the case shows, applied to other
| than charitable uses-"as for the good OF the
| craft'-in building hall for the unknown
| purposes of its existence. To authorize ex-
| emption from taxation its purposes must be
| "strictly charitable" "purelyscnaritable," not
| commingling Of other and more important
purposes with charity as mere secondary
| consideration.
! But we are referred to certain decisions as
| opposed to the conclusions to which we have
| arrived. 1t may be proper to remark that the
| constitution and regulations of the Grand
| Lodge were not before nor considered by the
| Court, in ths cases relied upon in defence.
| In King VS.. Parker, Cush. II, it was held
that a conveyance to certain persons and the
| survivors of them as joint tenants, but without
word of limitation to their heirs to the heirs
| OF the survivor, in trust to and for the use OF
| an uniDcorporated lodge of FIeemasons, to the
only proper use, benefit and behoof OF the
| lodge forever-that the conveyance was in
trust and that the estate did not descend to the
heirs of the grantor 1t suffices to remark that
since that.decsion the question of public chart
Ties has been before the same Court, and this
decision has been not merely doubted but, sub
stantially so far as relates to the question un-
der discussion, overruled. In Old South Soci-
ETY. VS.. Parker, 119 Mass. a. Wells, j., says
property held In trust for monthly meeting
of Friends seems to have sbeen regarded as a
public charity in Earle VS.. Wood, Cush. 430,
and in Dexter vs. GARDENERS Cush. 430; and
for lodge of Freemasons in King VS.. Parker,
9 Cush, IL, but neither of these cases was a
proceeding which concerned the administra-
ton of charity, as such. They were suits re-
lating to trusts, in which the rights of private
parties alone wereSrepresentsd. There was no
pubic charity declared in either case, and no |
adjudication which necessarily involved or was
based upon the existence of charitable trust.
A fund to be dispensed excl usively by way of
mutual aid or benefit, among the members of
an association, is q prigdte and not a public |
charity, 3 Gray 80, II Allen Ga. 1t may aoeU |
be questioned, therefore, whether all the condi-
tons requisite for technical public charity,
were present in the case Of King vs.. Parker. |
cited above.
The case of Duke vs. Fuller, 9 N H. 536, |
was that of an unincorporated Lodge of |
Masons, one of whose bylaws was that, "the |
furniture and funds of the lodge shall be con-
sidered as the joint and equal property of all |
the members who shall, by majority of votes, !
have management thereof for the good of the |
craft for the relief of INDECENT and stressed
worthy Masons, their widows and orphans"
The Lodge was dissolved and the funds divided |
among the six attending members and the de- |
PENDANT who had been its treasurer and the |
plaintiff brought his suit for his share. The |
court held the division void, and gave judg- |
ment for the defendant. In their opinion
they cite the Stat. 43 Eliz., rea6ing to fgifts |
ane devises' for charitable uses, as if the funds
derived from assessments were derived by |
"gifts or devises,'' which they assuredly are |
not, any more than taxes collected for and APP
propriated to the support of pauperS, is to be |
deemed within that statute, though that is
more general and extensive charity. Assuming |
this 10 be public charity, the Court intimate
that in cases of gross Encouragement, or dis |
solution, it might, sitting as Court Of Equity, |
take the funds and commit their administra- |
ton to other hands. But the right to thus in
terfere can rest only on the ground, that this
is purely public charity, which all the author
tiles show it is not.
499, the decision rests upon the long-continued |
construction by the City Council of Charles
ton, of an ordinance passed in 1898, exempting |
"all and every charitable society from
payment of any city taxes now due, or to be- |
come DUE" The property of certain real es-
tate belonging to the lodge remained untaxed |
until the year 1868, when, for the first time it |
was taxed. Having already intimated, OBJ
serves Moses, G. j., "that we do not consider it
as essential for any society claiming exemp-
ton under the ordinance of 1898, to show that |
the charities which it administers are purely |
for public purposes, we think the REALTORS are to
be held within it,. because the City Council,
from the period when the societies first owned
real estate in Charleston, to 1868, have given a
construction to it which it was too late to dis
regard or change while it was in force. 1t is
true as it was not in the nature OF contract,
they could have repealed it at their pleasure;
but while operative, their action in regard to
it for so long a time must be received as the |
Interpretation of their own enact
ment." 1t will DO perceived that it is not al
legged that the Lodges in question were within |
43 Eliz. The decision rests on the absence of
previous taxation, and on the construction of
the language of the ordinance, made in the
City Council.
In Mayor of Savannah vs. Solomons Lodge, |
So, Geo. 50, it was held that Masonic insti tu-
ton was charitable institution and exempt |
from taxation, but the decision was based sole |
ly by Warner, G, j., upon the Statutes of the
State. sit was" he remarks, $50 recognized |
and styled by the general assembly of this |
State, as far back as 1876: See Marble &c |
Crawford's Digest, 147." Upon this assump- |
tion and without discussion, the opinion rests.
Whether or not it was purely public charity |
was neither considered nor discussed.
In Everett VS.. Carr, 80 Maine, 326, all that |
was decided, was, that incorporated Masonic |
lodges might receive in trust, property devised |
for charitable purposes" They could hold |
property as trustees, as towns, or individuals |
can, but that does not make the towns, lodges, |
or individuals, public charitable institutions |
within the Statute. They are corporations es-
tablished for other purposes, and holding speci-
fed property for certain purposes. They hold
as corporations their own property in their
own right for such purposes as the law per-
mits; and trust property in trust, as other trus-
tees. In the will of Dwinel there were lega-
cies to Everett and others. sin trust, to b,
used solely and purely for charitable purposes"
Neither devise altered the relations Of the de-
yisees, so as to make either the lodges or the
individual trustees, thereby Charitable insti-
buttons" and therefore to be exempted from
was whether the Lodge could take
as trustee. That it does charitable acts is
not to be questioned, but if that was not tho
primary and exclusive object of its existence,
and if it was not purely benevolent, charita-
Bile institution, the purpose and objects of its
existence remaining unchanges, the receiving
devise as trustee would not make 1t public,
charitable institution-undert the Statute, when
without and before such devise it was not, any
more than bequest to town for literary pur-
poses would make such town literary insti-
tuition. The town can hold a devsesfor litera-
ry purposes, as trustee, precisely as lodge can
for benevolent purposes, without the one being
literary or the other benevolent institution,
within the puryiew of the Statute Piper VS..
Monlton ~ Mann, 155.
In Indianapolis vs. Grand Master, % Ind,
SIS, it was held that lodge was charitable
institution-but its rules and regulations were
not before the Court, nor considered by it.
The decision rather assumed it as true that
it was a charitable institution, and as
Stunning it to be SO, the Court decided that it
was.
After careful consideration of the constitu-
ton and the general rules and regulations OF
the Grand Lodge of the State of Maine, and af-
ter an examination of the authorities bearing
on the question, our conclusion is that Ma
sonic Lodge is not charitable or benevolent
institution, within r. s., Oh. 6, 6, p, 81. and
that its real and personal estate must bear its
equal and just proportion of the burdens OF sus.
tanning government with the other property of
the community.
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Walton, Barrows, Danforth Peters, Libbey,
SymondS, JJ , COnCurred,