Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1943 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERki OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
hion QP this de-
joct read0 in part
e0tnr of ubeele~ cm-
and I, EM ooniranted
3.q the llabllit~ oc
aration of the build-
St. nary's IfospltEL of
ieatton and ogeratfon of the boa-
ia suoh that it falls within the
empt publia aharitiea PIIdlseuaoed
the Caaaniesfon of Ap ala ia the
f SEn Antonio vs. SEO. ?z RQSO Inflr-
mary, sited In my brIei whioh sccm~iea this
letter, but na vould appmotite gout opinion in
1Qht of the faot that two slight distinotixms
exiet ma co?spaLil prith the &en%x%l run Q? the
demfsione, all Qf which are more or leaa ln bag-
aony.
Honcirable Hotner L. MQSS, Page 2
639
Honorable Homer L. Mom, Page 3
that during the tim4 of its OpelVbtiQllia the
4aunty $b4 hoepit4l baa been r&lmbursed by the
``%Mi~4Z"6 COtAl-t Of the OOUllt~ fQr half Qf
till0oort or aarlng fOl'oertsia indigent p8tient8
vh4n kh4 mm8 r4Qeilred rmm auoh 44wty .aaQunt
to not over 16$ of the 8errlaes daasted to the
oar4 and tr4atm4& of charity 4awm generally
over the 84m4period of the? a
mtisle 8, seetlon a,of the state camtitution
provides mats
"The L4gl8latur4 mebyby g4nera.l law exempt
from 8axatlon . . . in~titut,toaa of purely public
oheritys 8ud all IJAWS exempting property r-
than the sbovo msntibmed shall be
tsxartlax``~othar
null an+?4
VOM.'
Saotla..7: of Artialo '7X50, V4mmng8 Annotated C1vi.l
statut4r, w&8 4&44t4&in pumlwAn44 to al4 ab4v4 o4n8titutiOnal
pI%mi4lon,'u&d 2w8ds M r01r0ver
IV.: ~Publid oharitlas.--An lslztl-8 b4-
~lon$~%o .lnstitrPtionm qf pw~e4 publ&%eharity,
~ tog4khes vial the lmld# klol@ng ~80 end 444u-
~*s$&bj. awh blntttut1onca0t lerned.oP,.otlNer-
. da4 w4d *vWh a vi4v to.pr4Sit; upUr8 rwh
r4ati*~m&protit8 4nd allmeneym an4 oredit8are
.I :8ppr4pri6t.gdby ml4h %riaks.kut1oMrolol$ to lu8-
.````k&a%Wh itutltmtloacaat3 for~the benefit OS
dLndbl4dm4mb6il aad '%h4lr f4mtlie8
~ kh4 +*14&-axad
qd UWbaxUl 0r .the.(wpb, br iOr 8h6 maln84-
Mn4i‘of p4r8eM vh4a uaabl6 'to prevld4 'SOPthan-
lolva;~rlwWaor:a\loh poiwaaa :am mabow oi auoh
Inrtitut*&la or not. An~a8tlt\rtiaB of 9uPe4
pub- dbarity und?r thlr urtials La one uhieh
dl8pen44r ita da to ifa rn~bera arid other8 In
of .dl8tr488, ore at dsath, vitlumt r4-
f~laibo8i.. ,
~'gard to perar8y br '*l&es oS'.the'reoiplent, alro
vhm th-Sun&, property md a88488 of auah in-
ntltu8lons are pleoed end bound by its lmm to
relieve, aid and administer in any way to the
relief Qf its memb4r8 when in want, aiCkm3ss and
dietress, and provide homes for its helplear, end
640
Eonor-able Homer L. Moss, Page 4
dependent members and to educate and ma~Lnta5.n
the o@ia@a OS it5 decmased membws or qther
p4r50n8.e
xr &he St. .&my+ Bospltal is sn~lnstitution Qf
``rely~pu``fo~oharity within tacrzusoning of Artlalb 8, set-
tiOR 2 Qf.the~stat4 ~OWtitUtiOIl, snd~SUbdiVi8iOXl 7 Of Ar-
tltil4,.7&31;Limmn'.S'Amaotrte$ Civil Statutes, the real
es&IL,86
bdlOng* to,.aaidhQ8pikrl vauld be tax 4xempt. ,(See
the .easq@ of Santa Roea Infirmary ~5. City,?? S+i Antonio,
259,SAj'9qi1 .Flti.&!#8,odlatimi of PUl6i&slphla V8. Love,
1s$Cs.w~58 ,810; Benevol4n$ wd P. o. E. lodge vu. city
44, S.Y. (2d) 488; Wesonla Temple Asaooiatl6n
VS. AWikiiiQ Independent school DIetriot, 14 S.W. (26) 128;
City Qf Pal48tlne~ vs. Hi5soU``-P8OlflC Land Hospital AssO-
oiatloa, 99.SYM~..(2d).~ll; Soott ~8.~All S&its Hospital,
2oJ~s.w., r46p state va. Ced&ga5t, 227 s.U. 253).
.
Honorabfe Homer L. Moss, Page 5
The fact that the St. Nary'8 Hospital la lnoor-
porated under the laws of Illlnols would not, in our opti-
ion, efieut the liobiltty oc the wmnpticn of the hospital
reletire to t8xatiaI.i. Ifa hove been unable to rind any
Texao- ease deoiding tho pusetlim. Houever, it vfll be
noted ,thigt the rtatute (Artlale Yl.50, supra) exempts In-
stltutlima ~of purely publie iaharity vlthout restrioting
the beneS%oQuy 0S tha privileg, to 8 o4mpo~8te rrtatus
or oorpxubs duaiotle ln Texas or elmwhere. Stated ut-
othawway the aontrolllng Saotor wvuld ba vbether the hoo-
pitaX i(l m inrtitutlkm of mly pubuo uharity vithln
the me- of Artiole 8, ~5eOtioa 2 of the 8tate Constitu-
tion, and 8ubditlsion 7 OS Artfale 7051, Benon~a dnnotated
c1vl.l 5tate38.
The Seat that the mm&y pays rl~partion OS the
horpltilisation ohaq$q Sor indigent ~$ktle@e vo+d not be
a determ@ltq iaotor aa td whether t&e hospital ia .an in-
stltutia, ,oS purely p?bUa~ oharlty VtthZn tba laeanlng OS
the p.roois%ons OS’,the Constit\it~&’ imd aiallti ~mentfoxwd
abow: W gsner+l mxV9b tsumuad@ by tba abbve oitsd
oasss cyp to the. *Weat t&t v&r0 ..a bo+t8l a&Us 831
applbmnt~il ~mgiamllm~r of mm, eb&rgQig ‘those able to pay
” .I .‘When persons unable to pay VW-O
sent tio*a*suxltarlum fdlr cure and tveatmantSrcm
the rt8te or lsuaalp8lltlos whlall. wa)ra aarlng
SOP t&a as publlo f3haPgO8and dllMI ~peid t&9
aroiteciup for this aare at .a,rate 1088 ttmn the
ooet at ubkeh the atate or huniaipalltkn QP in-
stitutlans that operate like horplt8la operate,
it was held in order OS 5lsters 0r 8t;~. Joseph v.
. . ~lovar [ 1941) 239 uis. 278, 1 m (2d) ln, that
the 6anLtaaLum was nend the lesa a beaev~lent
institution wlthln the prcvislcn of the tax eas-
emption etatute. Repeating the rule of St.
. .
612
Honorable Eo.asr L. Kc38, ?sye 6
Jos&ph’S Hospital Asso. V. Ashland County
636, 72 NW 43, 8upra, the
!.%;I &y"*
d ‘These patlents are aubjetots of
oharlty. They am a8 auoh oharity p&tlentr
am if thep applied personally for admlsalon
i.n8tead.oS Slrst applying ta the pub110 au-
thorLti88 alid being by those mlthorltle8
sent to
this hospLta1. That the pub110 au-
thoritles pay fcrr this care does not avoid
the fact th& the patients aze objeote OS
ahaarity, any more than the Saot Vould be
avoided IS their care it88 patd for by the
donation8 OS prlva$e i.ndIvlduals aa In the
St. Joseph’s Hospital Aemo. Case.”
Whether the St. 1Qary18 Hospital, ae faarqtofqre
stated, is an Inatltutlcn OS purely ~,wbllc ‘oharlkf wlthln
the ioeanlng OS the provlalon of the Constitution and stat-
utes haretofore mentioned, is a faot question vhloh w oan-
nut determine. Xi, a8 above stated, st$ld hospital Is an
institution OS purely publio %xharlty withI+ :ghe meaning of
the Oon8titution and rtatute, then the real estate belong-
lng to the 8atd hcspLta1 wuld be tax-a%empt. However,
on the other hand, IS suoh hospitql 1,s not an l.za?t,ItutIon
of purely public Bherity within ‘the Manin& OS &Mole 8,
s80tian 2 43s the state aonmtmion,. th0 t``bdf~f~f~n 7 of
Art‘tie1e 7051, Bupra, It8 M41 estats vould not b8 tax-
exempt. The'proper Xtil authorltles~ mimt detennlne Sma
the aotwilly 8ximtf.q Saots whether the St. Macjr~s’ Roupl-
tal is an lnstitutlan OS mly public charity, vithln
th8 plsaakrg 0s th8 BbOV@ IW~tIOned prOViBionS 0.f the WA-
stltutlon and etatutes.
KOurmvePy truly
ATTONNEYQNNNNAL OF TNX4s
Ardell k~.~lfa``s
Assistant