Mayor of Savannah v. Solomon's Lodge, No. 1

53 Ga. 93
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 53 Ga. 93 (Mayor of Savannah v. Solomon's Lodge, No. 1) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mayor of Savannah v. Solomon's Lodge, No. 1, 53 Ga. 93 (Ga. 1874).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a bill filed by the complainant against the defendants, praying for an injunction to restrain the collection of a city tax on the property of complainant as set forth in its bill, on the ground that said property is not subject to taxation under the laws of this state. The presiding judge granted the injunction prayed for, and the defendants excepted. The complainant alleges in its bill that it is a body corporate under the laws of this state, by the name of “Solomon’s Lodge,, Number one, Free and Accepted Masons;” that it is a charitable institution, and that the city property taxed, is held and used by it for charitable purposes. By the 798th section of the Code “all poor houses, alms houses, houses of industry, and any house belonging to any charitable institution,” are declared to be exempt from taxation. Is a masonic lodge a charitable institution ? It was so recognized and styled by the general assembly of this state as far back as 1796: See Marbury & Crawford’s Digest, 147. Assuming, as we are authorized to do, that a masonic lodge is a charitable institution, it necessarily follows from the express words of the statute, that any house belonging to it, is exempt from taxation. The lltlx paragraph'of the 798th section of the Code, declares that all [94]*94stock's owned by the state, or by literary or charitable institutions, for the legitimate purposes of such, shall be exempt from taxation. It is insisted by the plaintiffs in error, that the words “any house belonging to any charitable institution,” should not be construed so as to mean every house belonging to every charitable institution. The reply is, that the words “any house belonging to any charitable institution,” are broad enough to include the house belonging to the complainant, as set forth in its bill. It is competent for the general assembly to pass an act restricting the meaning of the words contained in the Code, but until it shall do so, it is the duty of the courts to construe them in accordance with the plain and - unambiguous terms thereof.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

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

Related

McPherson v. City of Dawson
148 S.E.2d 298 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
MacGregor v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
99 N.E.2d 468 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
State Ex Rel. Womack v. Jones
10 So. 2d 213 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1942)
Ware Lodge No. 435, Ancient Free & Accepted Masons v. Harper
182 So. 59 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)
Church of the Holy Faith, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
48 P.2d 777 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1935)
Conrad v. County of Maricopa
12 P.2d 613 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)
People Ex Rel. Thompson v. Dixon Masonic Building Ass'n
181 N.E. 434 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1932)
People Ex Rel. Nelson v. Rockford Masonic Temple Building Ass'n
181 N.E. 428 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1932)
Ancient v. Board of County Commissioners
241 N.W. 93 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1932)
State v. Union Congregational Church
216 N.W. 326 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
Kellner v. Stahl
7 Pa. D. & C. 95 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1925)
In re Masonic Temple Society
111 S.E. 637 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1922)
In re the Estate of Hiteman
110 Misc. 617 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1920)
Horton v. Colorado Springs Masonic Building Society
173 P. 61 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1917)
State ex rel. Linde v. Packard
160 N.W. 150 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1916)
Morrow v. Smith
124 N.W. 316 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1910)
Plattsmouth Lodge No. 6, A. F. &. A. M. v. Cass County
113 N.W. 167 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1907)
Linton v. Lucy Cobb Institute
45 S.E. 53 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Mason v. Perry
48 A. 671 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1901)
Fitterer v. Crawford
57 S.W. 532 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 Ga. 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayor-of-savannah-v-solomons-lodge-no-1-ga-1874.