Kendall Young, now deceased, a resident of Hamilton County, died testate on June 30, 1896, seised of the lands now in controversy, containing about six hundred and forty acres. By his last will and testament he devised and bequeathed his entire estate, subject to the support of his widow during life, to the city of Webster City, Iowa, in trust for the establishment and maintenance of a free public library in said city, to be known as the “Kendall Young Library,” on condition that the same be taken, held, managed and controlled by certain persons, naming them, and their successors in office. All of said property was so devised by the testator as to constitute an endowment fund for the maintenance of the said library, save as a designated sum was to be used for the erection of a building and the purchase of books therefor. Pursuant to this devise, a public library was duly constructed in Webster City, Iowa, books purchased, and the library thrown open to the public. The trustees named in the will are plaintiffs in this suit and trustees of the said library. The defendants, in addition to the county, are the treasurer, the county auditor, and the board of supervisors thereof. The will was duly admitted to probate and an executor appointed, and on the 19th day of December, 1903, the property was turned oyer by the executor to the trustees for the purpose of carrying into effect the' trust created by the will. The library building and
All grounds and buildings used for public libraries, including libraries owned and kept up by private individuals, associations or corporations for public use, and not for private profits, and for literary, scientific, charitable, benevolent, agricultural and religious institutions and societies, devoted solely to the appropriate objects of these institutions, not exceeding one hundred and sixty acres in extent, and not leased or otherwise used with a view to pecuniary profit, but all deeds or leases by which such property is held shall be filed for record before the property above described shall be omitted from assessment; the books, papers and apparatus belonging to the 'above institutions, used solely for the purposes above contemplated, and the like property of students in any such institution used for their education; money and credits belonging exclusively to such institutions, and devoted solely to sustaining them, but not to exceed in amount or income
The italicized part of this section as quoted is the amendment to the section, known as chapter 54, Acts 32d General Assembly, which went into effect July 4, 1907. The section as it originally read ended with the word “incorporation,” just preceding the language italicized. This is deemed important in the construction of the proviso introduced by the subsequent legislative enactment. Appellants contend that, as taxation is the rule and exemption the exception, statutes providing for exemptions should be strictly construed, and no property relieved from its burden except such as clearly and fairly falls within the express terms of the statute. Pursuing this argument, they contend that a public library, such as the one above described, is not an educational institution within the meaning of the statute as amended. The trial court held that this library was an educational institution, and exempted the lands in controversy on the theory that they constituted an endowment fund for the library.. This finding is challenged by appellants, and for them it is contended that the words “educational institution” have a distinct and certain meaning and are applicable only to schools, academies, colleges, and universities and the like— that is to say, a place where regular and systematic instruction is given by teachers and professors to a student body — that this is the popular understanding of the term, and that such must be presumed to have been the legislative thought and intent. They also say that as the library is in Webster City in Hamilton County, and the land in Wright County, they should not be exempt from taxation for the reason that the other taxpayers of Wright County receive no benefits whatever from the library, and that, as the county must police this land, keep up the roads which
The Legislature has given us some rules for the construction of statutory language, and, among other things, it is said: “Words and phrases shall be considered according to the context and the approved usage of the language, but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning ip law, shall be construed according to such meaning.” Paragraph 2., section 48, Code. With this rule for a guide, we are to look at the context and to the approved usage of the language in order to determine its proper construction, and may also consider the fact that the words may have acquired a peculiar or appropriate meaning in law. Section 1304, before its amendment, had reference to exemptions, and attempted in seven separate paragraphs to differentiate, and measurably, at least, classify, the different forms of exemption. In this classification public libraries and private libraries kept for public use, the grounds, the buildings used for literary, scientific, charitable, benevolent, agricultural and religious institutions are classified as so nearly akin as to be brought together for the purposes of exemptions. This in itself is an indication that libraries stand on the same footing as other literary and scientific institutions. The amendment introduced by the Thirty-second 'General Assembly should be construed with this thought in mind. Surely a public library is not a charitable, benevolent, agricultural or religious institution, but it cei”
Moreover, the words have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law. In Inhabitants v. Brooks, 164 Mass. 79 (41 N. E. 119) the Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that the term “educational institution,” as used in a statute of that state exempting educational institutions from taxation on collateral legacies, included a free public library, and that legacies given to a town to establish and maintain a free public library were exempt. The legal status of a public library is pretty well defined by the decisions of the courts of this country. Indeed, it would seem that little doubt should be entertained regarding the educational character of such institutions. On no other theory can a tax levy in their support be sustained. The national bureau of education at Washington has always taken the position that public libraries are institutions of learning. In interpreting the will of John Crerar, the founder of the great public library in Chicago, Judge Tooley, at circuit, said in an opinion adopted by the Appellate Court as its own: “Such a library, beyond dispute, is a great public blessing to all within its range, rich and poor alike. It will make all of them wiser and better and more useful and powerful for good in all the relations of life. It is pre-eminently an educational institution, because its benefits will extend to a larger body of people than can be reached by any college or. other school of learning.” Crerar v. Williams, 44 Ill. App. 497 (s. c. 145 Ill. 625). In this state a library is considered to be within the proper range of school apparatus, for the statute expressly authorizes the acquirement and use of books by a school township and rural independent districts, and the establishment of small libraries to aid in the dissemination of knowledge. See Acts 28th General Assembly, chapter 110.
That it is for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of Webster City alone is not determinative of the question now before us. Moreover, we find no clause in the will limiting the use of the library to the inhabitants of the
The decree therefore must be affirmed1