THE ENERAL 

0F TEXAS:... 

t 

Hon. Cullen B. Vance 

County Attorney 

Jackson County 

Edna, Texas 

Opinion No. V-567 

Ret The authority of the 

Commissloners~ Court 

to apply the proceeds 

of a’special hospital 

maintenance tax .toward, the construction 

Dear Mr. Vance; 

of a county hospital. 

Your request for our opinion on the herelnabove captioned matter reads, in part as follows: 

“On January 26, 1946, an election 

was held throughsrrt~,Jaaksaal,la~ty on the 

question of whether or not the qualified 

voters of Jack,son County wanted a County 

Hospitala This election was held on a 

Petition signed by 557 persons, I am attaching hereto a copy of the Petition, 

omitting the signatures, however, together with the Order of the Commissioners~ 

Court, as entered in ,Volume IC Page 529 of 

the Minutes of the Commissioners1 Court 

calling this election, The results of 

the election as shown on Page 81 of Returns of Eledtions revealed that 730 affirmative votes were cast and 132 votes 

were cast against the Hospital+ 

USubsequent to the election, Mauritz 

Brothers of Ganado, Texas, deposited to 

the credit of Jackson County the sum of 

$.75,000000 toward the construction of a 

hospital9 This was later supplemented~ by 

an additional gift of $25,OOO,OO. Other 

gift’s from various in$$viduals and firms 

.a$;r;Fted the sum of approximately $6,- 

0 @ 

“Following the above referred to election the Commissioners’ Court levied a 

specla 1 hospital maintenance tax and there 

has now accumulated in this fund the sum of 
Hon. Cullen B. Vance - Page 2 (~-567) 

approximately $34,000.00. The County is 

attempting to get a Federal Grant toward 

constructing this project, but due to rising prices, apparently is going to take 

considerably more money than is now available, unless the County can use the $34,000.- 

00 now accumulated in the Special Hospital 

Maintenance Fund. 

preciate an opinion 

J shall, therefore, apfrom your Department as 

to whether or not this money now accumulated 

in the Maintenance Fund can be used by the 

Commissioners’ Court of this County toward 

the construction of the proposed hospital.” 

held; 

In Attorney General’s Opinion No. V-518 it was 

“Inasmuch as your opinion request reflects the establishment of such a hospital 

from current funds, the costs for the purchase would necessarily come from the Permanent Improvement Fund, and the costs of the 

operation and maintenance from the General 

Fund.” 

In the case of Carroll’v. Williams, 202 S. W. 

504, the Supreme Court of Texas said; 

“Moreover, in this instance the attempted transfer of money was not from a fund 

raised for ‘streets * * * and other permanent 

Improvements,’ but was from the general fund 

for ‘county purposes,’ which is an entirely 

distinct and different fund, and which as we 

have attempted to show cannot be applied, lawfully, on roads and brldges. 

“Taxes levied ostensibly for any specific 

purpose or class of purposes designated in 

section 9 of article 8, supra, must be applied 

thereunto, in good faith; and in no event and 

under no circumstances may there be expended, 

legally, for one such purpose or class of purposes, tax money in excess of the amount raised 

by taxation declaredly for that particular purpose or class of purposes6 But this rule would 

not prevent the proper expenditure, for such 

purpose or purposes, of any unexpended balance 
Hon. Cullen B. Vance - Page 3 (V-567) 

in the corresponding fund brought over from 

any previous year or years.” 

Applying the principles annourked.in this case 

to the situation about which you inquire, tax money raised for hospital maintenance purposes comes from the general fund levy, whereas tax money for the establishment 

and construction of a county hospital comes from the 

permanent improvement levy. Therefore, the Commissioners’ Court is without authority to appropriate hospital 

maintenance funds for hospital construction purposes, 

for such appropriation would constitute an unlawful 

transfer and diversion of constitutional funds. Article 

VIII, Sec. 9, Const, of Texas; Carroll v. Williams, supra. 

This opinion is not to be construed as passing 

upon the validity of the maintenance tax levied by the 

Commissioners* Court, nor upon the sufficiency of the election which was held for the purpose of establishing a 

county hospital. 

The Commissioners’ Court is not authorized to use money in a Hospital Maintenance 

Fund (General Fund) for the puf;rp;sev;;Iconstructlng a county hospital, 

Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution; ‘Carro i 1 v. 

Williams, 202 s. w. 504. 

Yours very truly, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

WTW:wb 

BY 

Assistant 

APPROVED: . 

ORNEY GENERAL