Case Name: ADELPHIA LODGE NO. 38, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, et al. v. CRAWFORD, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1900-06-26
Citations: 157 Mo. 356
Docket Number: 
Parties: ADELPHIA LODGE NO. 38, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, et al. v. CRAWFORD, Appellant.
Judges: Gantt, O. J., and Sherwood, J., concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 356–359

Head Matter:
ADELPHIA LODGE NO. 38, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS, et al. v. CRAWFORD, Appellant.
Division Two,
June 26, 1900.
1. Taxation: exemption: lodge property: rents. Property owned' by a lodge which is a charitable organization, when used by such lodge and other lodges as tenants which are not shown to be charitable organizations, is not exempt from taxation. To be exempt it. must be “exclusively used for purposes purely charitable.”
2. -: -: burden. The burden is on the lodge claiming exemption from taxation to show that it is not only itself a charitable organization but that its tenants to whom it rents the property are also such.
Appeal from Grundy Circuit Court. — Hon. P. 0. Stepp,, Judge.
REVERSED.
John W. Schooler, S. S. Kelso and S. 0. Price for appellant.
(1) The Constitution and statute exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed against the claim of exemption. Washington University v. Rouse, 42 Mo. ■323; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 89 Mo. 532; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 99 Mo. 42; State ex rel. v. Arnold, 136 Mo. 450; ■Scotland Co. v. Railroad, 65 Mo. 134; State ex rel. v. Lange, 16 Mo. App. 468; Wyman v. St. Louis, 17 Mo. 337; Railroad v. Cass Co., 53 Mo. 17; Cincinnati College v. State, 19 Ohio, 110; Redemptorist Fathers v. Roston, 129 Mass. 180; Portland Hibernian Society v. Kelly, 28 Ore. 173; Railroad v. Guffey, 120 U. S. 569; Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 73 Me. 428; Co. Commissioners v. Sisters of Charity, 48 Md. 34; Theological Seminary v. The People ex rel., 101 Ill. 578; Mayor of Baltimore v. Grand Lodge, 60 Md. 280; 25 Am. and Eng. Ency. of Law, 157, and authorities cited in n. 3, p. 157, note 1, page 158. (2) The application of the proceeds of property to a purpose purely charitable within the meaning of our statute, would not meet the requirement that the property itself shall be used exclusively for purposes purely charitable as a condition of its exemption from taxation. Literary Ass’n v. Pelton, 36 Oh. St. 253; Portland Hibernian Society v. Kelly, 28 Ore 173; Cincinnati College v. State, 19 Oh. 110; Trustees v. Boston, 120 Mass. 212.
Sorber & Knight with O. M. Shanhlin, R. T. Linney and 0. O. Williams for respondents.
That respondent lodges are charitable institutions and the property in question exempt from general taxation, there can, we think, be no doubt. Constitution, sec. 6, art. 10; R.S.1889,see.7504;State ex rel.v.Powers, 10 Mo. App. 263; Bishop Resident Co. v. Hudson, 91 Mo. 671; Mo. Historical Society v. Academy of Science, 94 Mo. 459; State ex rel. v. Academy of Science, 13 Mo. App. 213; N. St. Louis G. S. v. Hudson, 85 Mo. 32 (12 Mo. App. 342); Women’s Christian Association v. Kansas City, 147 Mo. 103; Barkley v. Don-nelly, 112 Mo. 561; Book Agents of Methodist Episcopal Chnrch South v. Hinton, 19 L. R. A. (Tenn.) 289; City of Henderson v. Strangers Rest Lodge, 17 S. W. 215.

Opinion:
BURGESS, J.
This case in all material respects is like the case of Fitterer v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 51, the only difference being in the organizations of the lodges, and in the case in hand the lodge owns and nses for lodge purposes, and rents out for lodge purposes, the third story of a certain brick building, which the lodge asserts is exempt from taxation under section 6, article 10, of the State Constitution, and section 7504, Revised Statutes 1889.
While the Knights of Phythias is a charitable organization, it is only when its property is used "exclusively for purposes purely charitable" that it is exempt from taxation (sec. 7504, R. S. 1889) and as it rents out the story of the building, which it owns, for purposes which are not shown to be charitable it is not occupied exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of the statute. Fitterer v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 51.
The judgment is reversed.
Gantt, O. J., and Sherwood, J., concur.