Court Opinion

ID: 9578588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:46:40.444497+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:46.012875
License: Public Domain

Head, Presiding Justice,
dissenting. Division 3 of the opinion represents the views of the majority of the court, in which the writer does not concur.
Under the evidence, the building of the petitioner is not used “for the purpose of ... corporate profit and income distributable to shareholders, . . .” Code Ann. § 92-201. The petitioner is not operating a business in competition with other businesses not enjoying tax exemption, as was true in United Hospitals Service Assn. v. Fulton County, 216 Ga. 30, supra.
*607Some of the organizations using the building of the petitioner are unquestionably charitable institutions. Some of the organizations meet for the study and advancement of the science of medicine generally, and in specialized fields. The happiness and well-being of the public must necessarily be increased by the increased skill and knowledge of the members of the medical profession serving it. It can not be denied that in the area served by the members of the medical profession belonging to the petitioner the public generally is benefited by the exchange of knowledge between the members of the petitioner which is effectuated by their meetings held in the building-owned by it. The public generally is also benefited by the meetings of the medical societies whose members are not all members of the petitioner. The meetings of such organizations as the Traffic Safety Committee and the Atlanta Milk Commission are shown to be in the public interest.
Under the definition of the term “charity” approved by this court in Thorpe v. Central Ga. Council of Boy Scouts of America, 185 Ga. 810, supra, as “substantially any scheme or effort to better the condition of society or any considerable part of it,” and the indication in City of Waycross v. Waycross Savings & Trust Co., 146 Ga. 68, supra, that the term “charity” is to be construed “in its broad sense,” it is my opinion that the building of the petitioner is shown by the evidence to be used for purely public charity. I therefore dissent from Division 3 of the opinion and the judgment of reversal.
I am authorized to say’ that Mr. Justice Quillian concurs in this dissent.