OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

monble ilarid J. Uorrie 

Ooanty Attorney 

Brown county 

Browmood, Texas 

Dew Elrz 

ounwoodM66iorial 

pXWQ6rt37 i6 WMIQt, 

axes elraady paid 

W6 have r idered )roW r6c;U66t iOr 

ther aartaiu propsrQ 

OSPit&., InO., 16 OS8Bipt 

15, 1943, there am 6et 

of the oorporatioa slhawlng ft 

not orgenlzed lor profit, end 

for odditionel inlaw--r dated 2:'ay 15, 1943, a portion 

The proparty inquired about is ueed 6xolu6~ve~y by 

The Rwwnwooa Mentorial Ho6pltal. 

"The Institution O-8 not rent orrio to dootore 

or to any other organl6etior, antI has no inoome of any 

type rr0ik e-3 propeFt7, other then yatlents who are abl6 

to pay. 
mnorable David J. Morris, page 2 

The property inquir6d about i6 the property upon 

whioh thaw ho6pitaL building Is looated. and no ot&r 

property is in gu~stlon. The hospital plant ant gmundr 

is th6 prOpWty ill qU66tiOn. 

*No one recsivse aay profit from the operation 

of the i3rownwood 3emorial &6pltaA. The doctor's oonneoted therewith draw nothing from the hospital, and 

have never reoelved any oompeneatlon thererrom, and 

there has never been any dividend or any kind deolarsd; 

and no-one expeots to draw Or reoeivn anything from the 

operation of the bo6pitaI.w 

You have etated that the property Inquired about ia 

666d eroIu6lre~y by the oorporatloQ. 'u6 thsrerore essum6 that 

th6 doOtOr6 oonneoted with the in6titUtiOn 814 not assigned 

Off1066 in the building, where they oonduot their private praotlo6 rbnt rree, in return ror 6erviose rendered. The requir6- 

mnt of exolualve uaa is not 6nti.9flnd in suah A case, even 

though those sharing the U66 pay Qo rent. Redp Johnson, 53 Tax. 

288; City or Longview Y. marlchzun-XaRee Zdemorlal Rospltal, 137 

Tax. 198, 152 8. W. (Sd) 1112. We also further 888111114 that 

th6 aotual operation of the institution la in accordance with 

it6 OharteX’ pSOViSiOn6. 

lWo questions ray be raieed as to the charitable 

nature of the lnstltution oonoerned hrr6: First, can an 

inrtitutlon be one of chtrrlty when its lnoorporators are 

dootore, who apparently a6 a group may minister to the slok to 

the exolu6lon ol’ other r^ootore? 3eoond, oan the institution ba 

drolared aharitable if upon dl66olutlon the 4ootor6 oonoorned are 

to reoeivo its aesota? 

The charters of the &enta:Rnaa Inrlrmarg and of the 

inrtltution oonosrned here are almoat ldcntloal, and these very 

qU66tfon6 ware raised by the Court of Civil Appeals in City Or 

San &ton10 v. ;lianta Rosa Infirmary, S4S 6. W. 498, at Dss,s 336. 

The latermedl~te court ~(29 reversed upon appeal, ;janta %oea 

Infirmary v. City of tian ialtcnlo, SS9 S. Vi. Q&I, In a decision by 

the Commission of J~pj~3d.S abated by tha Supreme Court. It wan 

apparent from t.rie charter of the Santa Rosa InflrsWy that oluy 

the Sister6 Of Ch&UTity Of th3 Incarnate bard could administer to 

the Bick, etc., and we we unable to distin&ah such e situation 
anopable Dar id J. :Zorriu, Fage 3 

from the one presented here. tie therefore believe that the Jupremae 

Court has by its deoiaion overruled I& firat objeotion. 

Relative to the seoond objeation noted above, we find the 

following: language used by the Commission of Appeals at pwge 935~ 

“The oorporetians here were not organized for profit.. 

They have no capital stocir--no private or oorporbte gain 

can aoorue. By their Very inoorporation for purely oharithbie 

and benevolent purposes they hava made a oontmot with tfie 

state and with t. e beneficiaries named in the charters 

effeotually constituting those in ohergo of ;t.he enterprise 

trustees of an exprees trust, nnd their charters in thoir 

last analysis and in their legal effeat become dsolaratione 

of truet. It would serve no useful purgeee to quote from 

the numerous authorities sustaining this view, but the 

follueing are aited: mer. .& Sng. haoy. of Law (28 Ed.) 898; 

Linton v. Brown’s kdm'ra (C.C .) 2C Fed 456; 2 Uoravetz on 

Corporations ilO46; 1 Perry on Truete (6th Ed.)1 82. 

“By ertiole 1136 of the hevised Litcrtutes any renewal 

of their corporate existenoe must ccatlnue the purposes 

originally stated. 

viny benericiary of the t&u& areated by the ohartera 

oould prevent, and BD might well the representatives of the 

state government enjoin, a use or appropriation of the trust 

e#tstem of tiW corporations for purposes of private gafn or 

those inconsistent with their oharter provlsioniv. Cook on 

Corporations, vol. 2j 492~ Dazrtmuth College v. i?oodward, 

$zheat. 518, 4 L. id. 629 ; 2 Perry on Trusts ( 6th Ed.) j 1 732- 

; “ttyiaaI ii Garrison et al., 101 ;dtrss. 233; Parker, 

eta.; v. ., 5 Gush. (Mass.) 336.’ 

In view of the above language, 1 t would seem that the 

public and the &ate of Texas are well proteoted from a dissolution 

Of a obaritable aoryoration which might redound to the banef it of 

its incorporators and members. 

Upon the fact6 presented, we hold the real estate belonsing to The arowmvood Memorial hospital, Inc., tax exempt. It 

should be understood, however, that the presenoe of new facto or 

wditi3ni3 arising i;i the future, might chzzge Its exempt status. 

However, ti differtint aituation exists iifth respect to 

Personal 2roperty beloqing to the institution. krtlele VIII, 

Yaatlon i, of our Constitution only permits the Leglelatare to 
honorable David J. xorria, Pww 4 

exe t "inatitutioaa of gu1.1~ publio oharity*. This portion of 

tu T onmtitutlon is not aelf-enacting, and siaae &ticlo 7150(T) 

V. j., only exempts the bulldiaga and @rounda ooaupied by 

a,",itL 156tltat2onB, it is our opinion the personal pmperty 

ia liable for faxen. See Davis v. Santa hors Ufirmary, (Clv.App) 

gg 6. iI. 185. 

be next consider tb refund oi real e&ate taxea by 

the rerloub taxing cruthor~tiae. In thla conueetion, you mike t& 

following l taremnt: 

"The oorpor.atlon Aid not reader ita real l rtatr 

for tha [year 1042, but had been paying the taxes Oy 

the month to (L lonn company atwryiag a previous loan, 

and this loan company beiore February 1, 1914%. paid 

to thm varlour taxing unite of Brownwood and 3rown County 

taxeu aaseaoed againot property of The Brownwood &aorlal 

hospital Inc. on the untendrred rolls." 

ihether the lam oompany be regarded as baring geld 

the taxes ?a ageat of the in8tltution, or under the powexr 

&ren it by oontract, the result ir that the taxe8 were pvid 

v01nataP11y. The sitatake mede wa8 e8 to taf liability, which 

1s a mletakce of law. Turma gaid voiuatarfly through mistake 

of law are not recoverable. Nntloaal tiisoult Co. v. State, 

134 Tex. 2c13 133 S. A. (2A) SSI; kuetln Nation&l &alr 0. 

Sheppard, 123 Tmx. 272, 71 &. L. (8d) 24:; Gttf ol Houston v. 

yei?.er, 76 TexL. 963, 13 2. %. 255; Frost v. Fowierton Conmolidated 

School tiiet. go. 1, (Civ. :;pp) 111 J. P. (2di 754. 

Although the Cuestim of tax liability ia one Of law, 

if there has hen EL ml&eke OS fact in couneotloa with the peyaunt or theme taxeo, we belteve the institution etill not entitled to a refund. In this State, the burden 18 upon one 

clainiw exeqtlon from taxation to show himself clearly within 

the statutory or constitutional exexegtion. ?b~Gallum V. keaoCl&ted tietail Credit *ien of iiuetinl (CO&U. ngp.) 41 5-i.. (26) 

45; ii. P. 0. C. &Age v, i:lt.y of llcuston, 44 3. +. (8A) 4593, 
nit of error refueed; Trinity Methodlet 

city of San AntonlO, 201 S. W. 669, writ 

~0 offioere of the aorporalion knew ~$11 

itr rights to-the tax eremptlon. ID our 

lipfsoopal Churoh v. 

of error refdaed. 

the facts establishing 

opinion, their negliGenoa In not Drlnging these raote to the attention of the taxing 

authorities, and in not olal,ing the exemption, bars tba institution froa recovering the taxes ?aid even though they IWAY have 

wen paid under mistake of fact. See City of Nouaton v. Felmr, 

supra. 

Vie truet the above euffioiently anmwerr you.? request. 

WE:ncd