Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 151 v. City of Houston

44 S.W.2d 488
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 1, 1931
DocketNo. 2114
StatusPublished
Cited by39 cases

This text of 44 S.W.2d 488 (Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 151 v. City of Houston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 151 v. City of Houston, 44 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

O'QUINN, J.

May 1, 1930, appellant, Houston Lodge No. 151, Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, instituted tliis suit in the district court of Harris county, Tex., against the city of Houston and certain of its officials, wherein appellant prayed for an injunction enjoining said city and its officials from levying and collecting city and school taxes against the property'of said lodge, and asking that said city and officials be perpetually enjoined from collecting such taxes, and that appellant be decreed to be a purely public charitable institution exempt from taxation under the Constitution and laws of the state of Texas. The city of Houston answered by general demurrer, general denial, and specially denied that Houston Lodge No. 151, Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, was a purely charitable institution, but affirmatively alleged same was predominantly a social organization, and that the dispensing of charity was only a small incident connected with its purposes and practices, and alleged that its property was not used entirely for such purposes, but that others were permitted to use, and did use, the property of said institution for private profit, no part of which profits were used for charitable purposes.

On November 3, 1930, upon a full hearing, the court entered its decree denying appellant the injunctive relief prayed for. From that judgment this appeal was taken.

The appellant, Houston Lodge No. 151, Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks, is a subordinate to the Grand Lodge of the Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks of the United States.

The preamble to the 1929-1930 constitution and statutes of said order reads: “To inculcate the principles of charity, justice, brotherly love and fidelity; to promote the wellfare and enhance the happiness of its members; to quicken the spirit of American patriotism; to cultivate good fellowship; to perpetuate itself as a fraternal organization, and to provide for its government, the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of America ordains this Constitution.”

Section No. 1 of article No. 1 of the constitution of appellant order is: “This Constitution, the statutes enacted by the Grand Lodge not in conflict therewith and the ritual, with the instructions therein contained, shall be the supreme law of the Order.” ■

The following, pertaining to the conduct of the said organization, was introduced in evidence:

“Club Rule No. 4.
“Upon application by a member to the Secretary, a visiting card will be issued to any female member of his immediate family, which card shall, as long as said member is in good standing, entitle the recipient to the privilege of the club.
“Article 1Ó.
“Fees & Dues.
“Sec. 1. The fee for initiation in this Lodge shall be fifty dollars, twenty-five must accompany the proposition; and the balance must be paid when the candidate presents himself for initiation.
“Sec. 2. The regular lodge dues shall be $12.00 per annum, payable semi-annually in advance on the first days of April and October in each year.
“See. 3. No fees shall be charged for affiliation,. provided, however, that if the initiation fee of the lodge granting a demit to the applicant for affiliation is less than the initiation fee of this lodge, the applicant must pay at least the difference in the initiation fees of the two lodges.
“Sec. 4. The fee for reinstatements in cases where more than a year has elapsed between striking from the roll and application for reinstatement, shall in every case be the amount of dues owed by the applicant when stricken from the roll, not exceeding two years’ dues.
“See. 5. The dues of any member who is sick or in distress may be remitted by majority vote of the lodge.
“Sec. 6. All dues from members shall be paid to the Secretary in person, or transmitted to him in registered letter, or by postal note, money order, or check, payable' to his order, and the Secretary shall immediately acknowledge the receipt of the same.
“Article 11;
“Help.
‘‘Sec. 1. All applications for help shall be referred to the standing relief committee, who shall recommend relief according to the circumstances of the case.
“Sec. 2. When a worthy Elk of this Lodge is destitute, unable to procure employment after diligent efforts, and actually without the necessities of life, he may make application in writing to the Lodge, or during the intervals between the sessions of the Lodge, to the standing relief committee (named in the Grand Lodge Statutes); and may, if found worthy, be assisted from the funds’ of the Lodge to a sufficient extent to provide him with the necessaries only.
“Sec. 3. When a worthy Elk of this Lodge is in the condition described in the second section of this Article, and in addition thereto is sick and in need of proper medicines, he may be provided with the same by the standing relief committee, and in addition thereto be provided with necessary medical attendants.”

This appeal presents but one question, and that is whether appellant is an institution of purely public charity within the meaning of section 2, art. 8, of our state Constitution. [490]*490If it is, it is entitled to the relief it seeks, but, if it is not an institution of purely public charity, although it devotes much of its time, energy, and resources to charity, a part of which is for the benefit of its membership and the balance for the public in general, it cannot have the relief prayed for.

S. W. O’Bryan, exalted ruler of appellant lodge, testified:

“The affairs of the Bodge are handled by a Board of Trustees. * * * The character of building located on this property that ,is involved in this suit is at the corner of Walker and Crawford Streets in the City of Houston. It is a three-story building, with a lodge room, gymnasium, class rooms, offices and so on. The building is used for the purposes for which we obtained it. It is used for the activities of the lodge. It is used exclusively by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, Lodge No. 151. This building contains lodge rooms, club rooms, a bowling alley, a restaurant, billiard and card tables, a librar^, a reading room, a natatorium and a barbershop. It also contains the office of the Secretary.
“The different portions of this building are used by the members and employees for the benefit of the organization. * * * We have certain employees around the building to keep the building in order. They wait on the members and do other things like any other 'organization of that kind with those facilities would have. * * * The revenue that goes to support the institution and the lodge and other necessaries of the organization is from dues paid in by the members from donations by members and received from charity entertainments. We also get .some from the bowling alleys and other facilities. We also get some money from some other properties that has been willed' to the Order. We get a royalty, as I understand, in oil land at Pierce Junction, that is for charity and cannot be used for anything else.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

First Baptist/Amarillo Foundation v. Potter County Appraisal District
813 S.W.2d 192 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1987
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1987
Lamb County Appraisal District v. South Plains Hospital-Clinic, Inc.
688 S.W.2d 896 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1985)
Aransas Hospital, Inc. v. Aransas Pass Independent School District
521 S.W.2d 685 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1975)
Able Irrigation Co. v. Calvert
495 S.W.2d 270 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Silco, Inc. v. Calvert
482 S.W.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1972)
Amarillo Lodge No. 731, AF & AM v. City of Amarillo
473 S.W.2d 264 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1971)
Hilltop Village, Inc. v. Kerrville Independent School District
410 S.W.2d 824 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
Methodist River Oaks Apartments, Inc. v. City of Waco
409 S.W.2d 485 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1966)
River Oaks Garden Club v. City of Houston
370 S.W.2d 851 (Texas Supreme Court, 1963)
City of Houston v. River Oaks Garden Club
360 S.W.2d 855 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Malone-Hogan Hospital Clinic Foundation, Inc. v. City of Big Spring
288 S.W.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
Boyles v. Gresham
260 S.W.2d 144 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1953)
Raymondville Memorial Hospital v. State
253 S.W.2d 1012 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1952)
Hedgecroft v. City of Houston
244 S.W.2d 632 (Texas Supreme Court, 1951)
Hedgecroft v. City of Houston
239 S.W.2d 828 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1951)
Smith v. Feather
234 S.W.2d 418 (Texas Supreme Court, 1950)
Chamber of Commerce v. Tax Court of Puerto Rico
67 P.R. 400 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 S.W.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benevolent-protective-order-of-elks-lodge-no-151-v-city-of-houston-texapp-1931.