Ron. Paul T. Bolt 

County Attorney 

Travis C ourity 

Auetln, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

opinion No. 0 -1474 

Re: Whether certain real 

property owned and used 

exclusively by Seton 

Inflmary of Austin, 

lbxas, is exempt from 

Taxation under the laws 

of this State. 

We are in receipt of your letter In which you. 

rem*-Tst an opinion of this 'Department as to vhether Certain 

property~owi63 by Seton IhfX:rmarg"ls'ex6mpt from taxation 

under the lavs'of thla"State: The'facta appear tb be.'that 

ti house is located'on~the grounds ~of Seton Infirmary vhlch 

was fokmerly used as's nurses' home. During the l&at severa1 years this property was used as a-home for the caretaker 

of the premises of Seton Infllmary. It seems that Seton 

InfiXXIarg receives po rent from the caretake~r but just furnishes the house to him as a home free. 

An examlnatlon'of the facts reveals that the operations of Seton Infirmary bring It within the classlficatlon 

n* a tax exempt hospital as set out by the Commission of Appeals of Texaa, Section A, in the case of Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. Citg~ of San Antonio, 259 S. W. 926. We do not set 

out the facts relating to the operation of Seton Infirmary 

since they are practically Identical with thoae of Santa 

Rosa InfLrmarg as set forth in that case. That is the leadfng 

case explaining which hospitals are exempt from taxation in 

thFs State. This exemption la based upon Article 8, Section 2 of our Constltutlon which reads in part as follows: 

"The Legislature may, by general laws, exempt 

from taxation public property used for publFc purposes;...' 

The exemption Is also based upon Article 7150, 

Section 7 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which &ads 
. - 

Ron. Paul. T. Holt, Page 2. (O-1474) 

as fOl:GWS: 

"All buildings belonging to Institutions of 

purely public charity, together with the lands belonging 

to and occupied by such institutions not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit, unless such rents and pr-cfits and all moneys and credits are appropriated by such 

institutions solely to suataln such institutIona and for the 

benefit of the sick and disabled members and their families 

and the burial of the same, or for the maintenance of persons when unable to provide for themselves, whether such 

persons are members of such Institutions or not. An inetltution of purely public charity under this article is one 

whLch disperses Its aid to its members and others in slckness or dls+ess, or at death, without regard to poverty 

or riches of l "he recipient, also when the funds, property and 

assets of such institutions are placed and bound by its laws 

to relieve, aid and administer In any way to the relief of 

its members when in want, sickness and distress, and provide 

homes for its helpless and dependent members and to educate 

and maintain the orphans of Its deceased members or other 

persons." 

In discussing the above exemption the court in 

the San Antonio case stated a8 follows: 

"There is no claim here that any part of the hospital bul.idrng was leased out Fn the ordinary sense, hut 

it is insisted that, because the major par% of the yooms ic 

the hospital xzw used to take care of pay patients, and 

because surgeons, not themselves engaged whoZ~1.y in a charltable.,work, were permltted to use theoperatlng rooms for ce?- 

taln fixed charges imposed up>n their patrons able to p.59, 

a~n3 because n certain ward was devoted %o the charltsble 

work of S+. Luke's Clinic, and because the dlspensszy n? 

small drug store in the building sold drugs tc its pay 

patients for a profit, the use of the property by the SLsters 

of CharLty became thereby nonexclusive by them, and also 

.deprived the organization of its characteristic as a pureig 

public charity. The Constitution does not In terms require 

a charitable inetltutlon, If it may claim exemption f?l'om 

taxation, to use Its buildlngs exclusively TcI- charitable 

purposes, as it does require in the case of educational 

institutions that they be used exclusively To? educational 

purposes, but the -equirement is only that the Yuildlngs 

be useo by the chal-itable Instltutlon, as herttofore 

pointed out.” 
Hon. Paul T. Rolt, Page 3. (O-1474) 

This case sets up two requlrememts for the exemption from taxation of property of such a dharltable lnstltuMon. One, the property must be owned by the organlzRt.+mrl 

claiming the exemption; two, the property must bc exclusively 

used by said organization. The faots in your case show 

that Seton Infirmary owns the property and the only question 

Is whether or not the property which ia furnished to the caretaker of the premises as a home, is being exclusively used 

by the organization. It is the opLnFon of this Department 

that It Is so being used. 

We think it no more than reasonable that a hospital of the size of Seton Infirmary should have a' caretaker and overseer Who resides on the premises to see that 

the same are not dlsurbcd and are kept in good condition. 

S&ton Infirmary charges the caretaker with no rent for the 

use' of the property. Of necessity, the use bf the hom&,waa 

considered as part of the caretakers compensation. What 

ever savings come from having this property for the use of 

the caretaker results to Seton Infirmary itself. 

If is the opinion of this Department, therefore, 

that this proptrty of Seton Inflnnary vhich'is used as a 

home for the caretaker on the premises Is tax exempt. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS 

By: /a/ Billy Goldberg 

Billy @oldberg 

Assistant 

Bff :pbp -dhs 

APPROVED NOVEMBER 20, 1939 

/a/ Gerald C . Mann 

ATTORIEY OENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED 

OPINION 

COMMITTEE