‘THE A~ORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

GERALD C. WARN AUSTI~~II. Tsxsan 

Eon. B. Y. Gunningham 

bounty Auditor 

NavarPo County 

Corsioana, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2392 

Re: Should Navarro County pay burrial 

expenses of patients sent to the 

State Sanatorium? 

Your recent request for an opinion of~this department on the 

question as 5s herein stated has been Teoaived. 

We quote from your letter as follows: 

%n’several oooasions Navarro County has sent patients to 

the State Sanatorium and on some few oooasions these 

patients die while in the hospital and the undertakers require Navarro County to pay for the burial expense. 

“We do not set up 5n our budget any monies for this 

purpose and I am wondering if these patients after being 

sent to the SanatroiUm.and aooepted by:them,are- notwards 

of the State of Texas instead of Navarro County. 

“So far I have not paid any burial expense and I may be 

wrong in my OpiniOn.~ The Dootors tell me that the 

Sanatorium or the State of Texas have no money foTthLs 

expense. Will you k%ndly advise whether Navarro County 

should pay this burial expense or 5.a it an obligation of 

the State of Texas.” 

Article 2351, Vernonrs hnnotated 0ivil Statutes, provides In 

part that eaoh oommissioners t oourt shall “provide for the 

burial of paupers”. 

Under the,above mentloned’statute it 5s inoumbent on oommisaloners* oourts t6 provide for the burial of paupers, and it 

has been sald~that this is a duty which oounties owe to every 

au er regardless of whether or not he has been formally 

iieoyared a pauper. But 5r1 Order to fix the 15ab515ty of the 

oounty for burialexpenses, notice should be given to the 

proper authorities and their permission obtained for thsburial. 

‘,“xW J;l;? Vol. 32, p. 612; MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, 25 

. . . 
Hon. E. Y. Cunningham, page 2, o-2392 

In 0888 of MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, supra, it was held 

that a oounty is not liable fOT ooffins of paupera dying b a 

pesthouse whloh la in charge of the atate, under tha quarantine 

laws. 

We quote ,fTom the above mentioned oaae as follows: 

“The only question presented for our deolslon 1s as to the 

llabillty of the ,oounty for the coffins of those who died 

ln the pesthouse while the state had oharge of it under 

the quarantine laws. Artiole 1514, aubd. 10, Rev. St., 

makes it incumbent on the oounty to provide for the burial 

of paupers ; and this 5s a duty the oounty owes to every 

pauper, no matter whether he has been formally deolared a 

pauper by the county or not. Whenever it 5s aaoertalned 

that a man has died, who was a pauper, it beoomes the duty 

of the county to provide for his burial. But in order to 

flx the liability of’ the bounty fOT the burlal expenses, 

exoept in extreme oases, notice should be given the county 

judge, or some oounty oomm5ss5oner. It would open the door 

to frauds on the counties if individual citizens are given 

the authority to decide who are paupers. The instances 

will be rare indeed when any great lnoonvenlenoe will arise 

from notifying the proper authorities of the ,death of a 

pauper, and obtalnlng proper authority for the burial. 

There oan bs no doubt that, if the dootor ln charge of the 

peathouse has been in the employ of the oounty, it would 

have been responsible for the oofflns furnished for thoffe 

who had been confined and died there, if they were paupers. 

Under artlole 4090e, Saylee Ann. St., it 5s made the duty 

of the governor or the health offioar, ln oases of 

emergenay, to declare quarantine against any infectious 

or oontagious dleease, and it la provided in article 40901 

that all coats and expenses of enforoing and maintaining 

any such quarantine shall be paid by the state. The object 

of quarantine 1s to prevent the entranoe or spread of 

disease, and we are of the opinion that, to fully meet &e 

demands of an effiolent quarantine, it would, be necessary 

;;a;;;;d5tloualy bury those who die in the quarantlna 

. If the state is in oharge of the quarantine, the 

expense of the burlal of the paupers who die 5x1 their 

oharge would rest upon the state. The burial of those who 

die in a quarantine station in charge of the state would~ 

be a part of the neoesaary ooat and expense’ of enforolng 

and malntalnlng the quarantine. Eve 

held contr~ol of the pesthouse, it wou \

if the oounty had 

d seem that the 

oharge of maintaining the quarantlne irou3.d Ultimately be 

ohargeable against the stats. Artials 4097. We are of the 

opinion that there 5s no error .-in the .jyd&men,t, and it ie 

aff5rmed.t’ I 

&tloIe 3241, ‘Vermont8 Annotated Civil Statutes, reada, In part, 

as follows 1 
Hon. E. Y. Cunnlngham, page 3* O-2392 

“Patients admltted~to said institut~ions ~shall be of 

three olaseea, to-wit: 

“1. Indigent pub150 patients. 

fi2. Non-indigent pub110 ,patIente. 

it3. Private patients. 

“1ndlgent:publio .patFents are thoae who possess no 

property of any klnd nor have any one legally responsible 

for their support, and who are unable to reimburse the 

State. This olass shall be supported at the expense of the 

State. 

‘Our, bplnlon‘No. O-2021 holds in effeot that the Board of Control has power to enter into a binding oontraot for the preparatlon and burial of lnddgent inmates of oertaIn state 

eleemosynary InstItutlon. We are enolosing herewith a oopy 

of this opinion-for your convenienoe. 

A representative of the Hoard of Control has Informed ua that 

said Board has made arrangements with various undertakers to 

bury Indigent inmates who die in the different eleemosynary 

Institutions of the State, inoludlng the State.Tuberoulosis 

Sanatorium; where the relatives OT friends do not claim the 

remains of the deoeased, and that the State makes no demand 

on the county of the resident of the deceased to pay suoh 

burial expenses. 

In certain articles dlsouaaed in the case of MoMorton v. 

Val Verde County, supra, it mas made the duty of the Governor 

OT the health offioer, in oases of emergenoy, to deolare 

quarantine against infeotloue or contagious diseases, and it 

was further provided that. all oosts and expenses of enforcing 

and maintaining any such quarantine should be paid by the State. 

In view of the above mentioned case of MoMorIson v. Val Verde 

County, we believe that Artlole 3241, aupra, Imposing upon 

the State the duty to support and pay the expensea oft pub110 

$ndIgent patlents would alao impose upon the State the duty to 

bury such patients when they die in the State Sanatorium and 

various other eleemosynary institutions of the State. 

Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it la the opinion 

of this .department that Navarro County aould not be liable 

‘fdr the burial expenses of publio, indigent patients who reside 

in said oounty and die In the State Sanatorium. Such expense 

ia an obligation of the State of Texas. 
Hon. E. Y. GunnFngham, page 4, O-2392 

Trusting that the foregoing fully ahswers your inquiry, we are, 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

a/ Ardell Williams 

BY 

Ardell Williams 

Assistant 

p$dcf3 

. 

APPROVED JUNE 26, 1940 

a/ GERALD C. MANN 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

APPROVED OPINION CONMITTEE 

By BWB, Ohairman