Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Gerald C. Mann
This Opinion
Overrules Opinion PO.
O-5324
Honorable Tom F. Coleman, Jr.
County Attorney, Angelina County
Lufkin, Texas
Dear Sir8 Opinion Ro. O-5502
Re; Use of bond moneys for
construction of nursss'
home, delivery room and
maternity ward.
This is in response to recent correspondence we have had with you
and Honorable Otto Brittain, County Auditor of Angelina County, requesting
our reconsideration of Opinion No. O-5324. In that opinion we held that funds
frcanbonds voted in 1941 by Angelina County for the purpose of establishing,
enlarging and equipping a county hospital could not be used to construct a
nurses* hone. Based upontie agditional faots sulrmitted,we are treating the
matter as a new opinion request.
As we understand the faots now presented, in the year 1941 Angelina
County voted a bond issue for the purposeof "establishing, enlarging snd equip-
ping a aounty hospital and for all other necessary pemanent improvements in
connection themith." This bond issue was authoriced under the provisions of
Article 4470, Q. A. C. S. You desire to be advised whether these funds may be
used to oonstruct a building in connection with the hospital, which will be
used partly to house nurses and partly for delivery rooms and a maternity ward.
You state that the entire building probably will be used to house numes
when a main hospital building is constructed after the war.
In our opinion it lies within the power of the cmsnissioners' oourt
to construct the proposed building.
We cannot say that a building used wholly as a nursest home or
partly as a nurses' bane and partly as a delivery room and maternity ward is
not used for hospital purposes; and while it is true,,as pointed out in our
Opinion No. O-5324, the law requires tkt the buildin be "neoessary," the
question of necessity is one of fact; Pitt.6v. Camp Eounty, 42 S.H. (2d)
953 left for determination to the governing authority of the county. Landrum
,
Honorable Tom F. Coleman, Jr., Page 2 (o-5502)
v. Centennial High School District (Civ. App.) 146 S.W. (2d) 799, w.d.j.
o. Compare Opinion Nos. O-1607, O-2516 and O-2926. Moreover, we have
found at least one case holding that the word "necessity" as here used
implies "needful" rather than "indispensible." Hutcheson v. Atherton,
44 Barb. M. 144, 99 Pac. (2d) 462.
He therefore advise you that if the Commissioners' Court of
Angelina County determines, in the exercise of its sound judgment and
discretion, that the proposed building is nsaessary, proceeds fromthe
bonds voted by Angelina County in 1941 may be used to construot it.
Insofar as the same conflicts hsrewith, our Opinion Do. O-5324
is expressly overruled,
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
By
s/ Jas. D. &sullen
Jas. D. Smullen
Assist$t
APPROVED AUG 16, 1943
s/ Gerald C. km
A’iTORlEL GWETRAL OF TEXAS
JLSIEPI``~
Approved Opinion Committee
-w RWF Chairman