# Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy Female Academy of Little Rock

Justice Jesse C. Hart wrote the opinion of the Court in Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy Female Academy of Little Rock, 84 Ark. 497 (1907). Justice Hart later became chief justice.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
84 Ark. 497
Hot Springs School District v. Sisters of Mercy of the Female Academy of Little Rock, Arkansas
Appeal from the Garland Circuit Court
Delivered: December 9, 1907.
* Court Documents
* Opinion of the Court
Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Alexander M. Duffle, Judge; affirmed.

## Statement by the CourtStatement by the Court

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Garland County, which held that the hospital buildings and grounds upon which it is situate, in the city of Hot Springs, come within the exemption of the Constitution, and are not subject to taxation.
Among the exemptions from taxation contained in the Constitution are: "Buildings and grounds and materials used ​exclusively for public charity." Const. 1874, art. 16, § 5. The evidence shows that in the hospital there is one large room with ten or twelve beds, and four rooms with three beds in each especially for charity patients; that there are other rooms for patients who pay; that the institution is open to any worthy sick person not afflicted with a contagious or infectious disease; no one being refused on account of religious belief or inability to pay. A drug store is maintained in which prescriptions are filled and medicine furnished for those in the house. Those who are able pay for articles got at the drug store; those who are not able are furnished free. None are ever refused, whether they have money or not. A free operating room and a free clinic are maintained in the hospital, and the drug store furnishes bandages and anesthetics, and fills prescriptions for them. The institution also maintains a school for nurses. It employs, at a salary, an educated nurse and instructor in nursing from Chicago; and also employs a number of girls who are instructed in nursing by her and by the doctors at the clinic, and who assist in nursing the patients. At the time of the trial there were eight girls in the training school, besides the teachers. None of these sisters receive any compensation. All money received from any source goes to maintain the institution. They had originally a small frame hospital, a gift to the order about twenty years ago, and they have recently erected a large and expensive building, partly through donations and partly through borrowed money; and whatever surplus money might arise from any source would go to pay this loan. No funds are diverted from that institution, and it in no sense involves an idea of profit to anyone. Whatever profit is realized from those who pay goes to the benefit of those who can not pay, and to extend and enlarge the charity done there.
The articles of association or incorporation are not in the transcript, but it is a matter of general information, and the evidence shows, that the Sisters of Mercy are a benevolent and charitable organization, to teach the young, to nurse the sick and take care of the indigent and poor. It has no aim of gain or profit, and whatever it receives from any source is expended in promoting its primary objects.

## Argument for AppellantArgument for Appellant

Wood & Henderson, for appellant.
​The undisputed facts show that the property in controversy was not being used exclusively for public charity, and was not intended to be so used. It does not, therefore, come within the provisions of the Constitution exempting such property from taxation. Art. 16, § 5, Const.; 19 L. R. A. 289; 9 Id. 629; 50 Id. 191; 65 Ark. 343; 62 Ark. 481.

## Argument for AppelleeArgument for Appellee

Greaves & Martin, and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, for appellee.
This institution is a public charity, and as such is exempt from taxation. 14 Allen, 556; 15 Atl. 555; 60 Fed. 365; 120 Mass. 434 ; 17 Atl. 455; 25 O. St. 229; 38 Am. Rep. 298; 125 Pa. 572; 18 Q. B. Div. 444; 134 Pa. 171; 58 Hun, 386; 99 Vt. 202; 98 N. Y. 121; 145 Mass. 149.
[Opinion of the Court by Justice JESSE C. HART.]
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse