OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN

monble ilaridJ.Uorrie 

### OoantyAttorney Brown county Browmood, Texas

Dew Elrz

ounwoodM66iorial

pXWQ6rt37i6 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 slhawlngft 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 MentorialHo6pltal.
"The Institution O-8 not rent 

## orrio to dootore or to any other organl6etior, antIhas no inoome of any type

## rr0ike-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 thawho6pitaL building Is looated. and no ot&r 

### property isingu~stlon. The hospital plant ant gmundr is th6 prOpWty illqU66tiOn.

*No one recsivse aay profit from the operation of the i3rownwood3emorial &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. 'u6thsrerore essum6 that th6doOtOr6 oonneoted with the in6titUtiOn 

### 814 not assigned Off1066 in the building, where they oonduot their private praotlo6rbnt rree, in return ror 6erviose rendered. The **requir6-** mnt of exolualve uaa is not 6nti.9flndin suah A case, even though those sharing the U66 pay Qo rent. Redp Johnson, 53 Tax. 288;City or Longview Y. marlchzun-XaRee ZdemorlalRospltal, 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 chtrrltywhen 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,s336. Thelatermedl~te court ~(29reversed upon appeal, ;janta%oea Infirmaryv. City of tianialtcnlo,SS9 **S. Vi.**  **Q&I,** 

### Inadecisionby the

### Commissionof J~pj~3d.S 

### abated by tha Supreme Court. Itwan 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 unableto distin&ah such e situationanopable DaridJ. :Zorriu, Fage 3

from the one presented here. tietherefore believe that the Jupremae Courthas 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--noprivate or oorporbte gain
can aoorue. By theirVery 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

## ohergoof ;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.) 2CFed 456; 2Uoravetz 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 BDmight 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.)j1 732- ;“ttyiaaI ii Garrison et al., 101 ;dtrss. 233; Parker, eta.; v. .,5 Gush. (Mass.) 336.’
In view of the above language, 1t would seem that the publicand the &ate of Texas are well proteoted from a dissolution Ofa obaritable aoryoration which might redound to the banefitof itsincorporators and

## members.

Upon the fact6 presented, we hold the real estate belonsingto The arowmvood Memorial hospital, Inc., tax exempt. It shouldbe understood, however, that the presenoe of new facto or wditi3ni3 arising i;ithe future, might chzzge Its exempt status.

However, tidiffertint aituation exists iifth respect to Personal 2roperty beloqing to the institution. krtlele VIII, Yaatlon i, of our Constitution only permits the Leglelatare tohonorableDavid J. xorria, Pww 4

exe t "inatitutioaa of gu1.1~ publio oharity*. This portion of tuT onmtitutlon is not aelf-enacting, 

### and siaae &ticlo 7150(T) V. j., only exempts the bulldiaga and @rounda ooaupied 

### by a,",itL 156tltat2onB, it 

### isouropinion the personal 

### pmperty ialiable 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.atlonAid not reader ita real l rtatr for tha [year **1042,** but 

### had been 

### paying the taxes Oy the

### month to 

### (Llonn 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 1samletakceof law. Turma gaid voiuatarfly through mistake of law are not recoverable. Nntloaal tiisoultCo. v. State, 134 Tex. 2c13133 S. A. (2A) SSI; kuetln Nation&l &alr 0. 

### Sheppard,**123 Tmx.**  **272, 71**  **&. L.**  (8d) **24:;** 

### GttfolHoustonv. yei?.er,76 TexL.963, 13 2. %. 255; 

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

Although the Cuestim of tax liability ia one Of law, 

### ifthere has 

### hen EL ml&eke OS fact in couneotloa with the peyaunt or theme taxeo, we belteve the institution etill not entitledto 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&tedtietailCredit *ienof 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 itrrights to-the tax eremptlon. ID 

### our lipfsoopalChuroh v. of error refdaed. the facts establishing opinion, their negliattention of the taxing Genoa In not Drlnging these raote to the authorities, and in not olal,ing the exemption, bars tba institution froa recovering the taxes ?aid even though they IWAYhave
wen paid under mistake of fact. See City of Nouaton v. Felmr, supra. Vietruet the above euffioiently anmwerr you.?request.

WE:ncd