Aсtion to collect general taxes on real estate. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
Respondent Koeln is the collector of the revenue in and for the city of St. Louis. The defendant St. Louis Young Men’s Christian Association is a religious and educational association, organized under the laws of Missouri (Art. 10, chap. 33, R. S. 1909). It is the principal defendant, and, for the purpоses of this opinion, will hereafter be treated as the sole defendant.
Defendant owns two buildings in the city of St. Louis, which are mainly used for the physical education and spiritual and social development of young men and boys. However, some of the rooms оn the first floor of said buildings, aggregating about fifteen per cent of the floor space thereof, are rented for stores and other commercial purposes. The rentals received by defendants are used only to promote the religious and educational work of the defendant association. The amount of taxes for which judgment was rendered
Some of the lаnds upon which defendant’s buildings are situated, and upon which the taxes in controversy were levied, are held by defendant under leasе, while another part thereof is owned by defendant in fee, but no point is made by defendant on account of this diversity of ownershiр; therefore, for the purposes of this action we will treat the taxes as having-been levied upon property belonging whоlly to defendant. The amount of support which defendant receives from voluntary contributions far exceeds its income from the rental of space in its buildings. The land upon which the taxes in controversy were assessed has been used for twenty years in the same manner as at present, during which twenty years no attempt has been made to assess general taxes against it.
Section 6, article 10, Constitution of Missouri, after exempting property of the State, municipalities аnd cemeteries, provides that the following additional property, to-wit: “Lots in incorporated cities or towns ... to the extent of one acre, . . . with the buildings thereon, may be exempted from taxation, when the same are used exclusively for religious worshiр, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable.” Section 7 of said article 10; Constitution of Missouri, further provides that “all laws exempting property
Two of the cases cited by respondent (Taylor v. Labeaume,
We are aware of the ruling in the case of Statе ex rel. v. Johnston,
Appellant’s learned counsel cite cases from other jurisdictions where it has been held that only such per cent of a building owned by a religious corporation as is used for commercial purposes shall be subject to taxation, but we cannot bring ourselves to believe that any such intent was in the minds of the framers of our Constitution. Just what was in the minds of the framers of our Constitution, it is not necessary to ascеrtain. What they have said in regard to tax exemptions is s,o clear as to carry its own construction. We need only to read what they have said, and construe their words according to their “plain or ordinary and usual sense.” [Sec. 8057, R. S. 1909.] The neglect of lawfully constituted authorities to assess taxes against defendant’s property would be pursuasive evidence that said property is not taxable, if the law were susceptible of more than one construction. [Westerman v. Supreme Lodge, 196 Mo.l. c. 709.] However, the mеre neglect of public officers, or others, to obey a plain constitutional provision or statute will not effect its reрeal. [Lucas v. Brown,
However much we may sympathize with the exalted purposes of defendant, the words “dominant use” or “principal use” cannot be substituted for the words “used exclusively” without doing violence to a document which we have sworn to support and uphold.
Finding it our plain duty to affirm the judgment nisi, it is so ordered.