GERAW, .C. MANN'. ,AUSTXNSI. -cl 

. ., 

Honorable~ Ti 'M./Trimble<. 

First Assistant State Superintendent 

Austin, Texab 

Dear Sir: . O&non No..C+43 

Whether property :of Sarah 

B. Mi,lroy Hospital is exempt 

from taxation. 

We.are'-.in, receipt'.of your ietter'.of July .18, 199’. &wherein you 

request sour'opin$on'as $o:whether the Sarah ~B. Niiroy.Hospital. 

is hxempti 'from thepayment of texes to.the Brenham&dependent 

Sdhool D.i&.l?ict'npon its properties; YUnder.the.facts.which you 

submi,t to. usj:'the Sarah D. Piilroy Hospital .Is:a'Texas~.cor*poration 

with capit&.~stock having a' p!ar.value' a'nd'.~rganize,d.f?.r' private 

p*of$&. ’ ., 

Art&le Fi, Section 2 of the ,State Constitution provides'&& "the 

Legislature~may by.general laws exempt from taxation.......... 

institutions'-of'urely public charity; and all laws exempting 

property from taxation other than the above mentioned shall be 

null :and. void.". 

Section 7 of Article 7150, Revised Civil Statutes,.was enacted 

in pursuance~to the above constitutional provision, and the first 

sentence-thereof reads as .follows: 

"Public charities. All buildings belonging to institutions 

of purely public charity, together with:the,:l,ands!belonging 

to and occupied by such institutions not leased or otherwise 

used with a view to profit, unless such rents and-profits and 

all moneys and credits are appropriated by such institutions 

solely to sustain such institutions and for the benefit of 

the sick and disabled members and their familiesand the..:' 

burial of the same, or for th.e maintenance of persons when 

unable to provide for themselves, whether such persons are 

members of such institutions or not....." 

The fact that the institution in question does some charitable 

work is not sufficient to bring it within the exemption. Our 

courts have held that the work *purely" as used in Article 6, 

Section 2, of the Constitution, is intended to modify the word 

"charity" and not the word "public"~. Therefore, for an institu- 
Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 2 o-u.43 

tion to be one of "purely public charity," it must be:~one yhose T 

property is used wholly and exclusively for charitableplrposes. 

B.P.O.E. Lodge No. 151 vs. City of Houston, 44 S.W. (2d) 488; 

City of Houston vs. Scottish Rite Benevolent Association, 230 

S.d. 978. As stated in Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. City of San 

Antonio, 259 S.b+i. 926, by the Commission of Appeals, Section 2 

of Article 8 of the Constituion expresslymakes null and void 

all exemptions attempted thereunder by the Legislature unless 

authorized by the constitutional provision ,itself.. :It.is not. 

made mandatory that the Legislature shall extend the exemption 

but the constitutional provision is only an authorization to do 

so. As shown in the aoove quotation, the statute does not attempt 

to extend the exemption to buildings and land belonging to an 

institution where ~.the same is used with a view to profit. This 

precludes fromthe exemption the property of a corporation where 

distributable earnings in the shape of dividends upon the,stock 

of the corporation are to accr.ue. See Santa Rosa ,I.nf.irmaryvs. 

City of San Antonio,: supra. Exemptions from taxation are uot 

favored and. in order for a.perso.n'to receive,'the oenefit.s of 

such exemption~the burden, is upon him.to show that~his.property 

clearly comets with,in the same. B;:. Pi 'O?'E. Lodge ,No..l51 vs. 

City ofHouston, supra.; .Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. City of San 

Antonio; 'supra. Under the facts submitted to us, the property 

of the Sarah B. Milroy Hospital is not exempt from the payment of 

the school taxes. 

Yo& ye+y truly 

ATTORNEY GENBRAL OF-TEXAS 

GRL:N 

APPROVEU &JL:31,~1939; 

BY 

GlennR. Lewis 

Assistant 

W..F. MOORE‘ 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL-