San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-01-24
HOLDS CITY May
COLLECT Taxes
FROM HOSPITAL
Fourth Court Rules Santa
Rosa Is Not Exempt Un-
der Constitution.
WILL APPEAL CASE
Opinion Says Institution Or
Grated for Corporate
Profit.

Right Of municipal corporation 10
tax property belonging ia a religious
organization where such property Is not
used strictly for church or charitable
purposes was upheld by the -Four IA
Court of Civil Appeals in Il decision
handed down Wednesday, In 81 holt
ing the court reversed and rcmlnd"d
the case of the Citv of San Nnturu
vs.. the Santa Rosa Infirmary. INSTRUCT
ing the trial court to ascertain :hr
amount Of taxes due and render jId;-
ment in favor Of the city. The courts
decision i expected To affect other
similar institutions. II is believed.
however. that appeal will be taken TO
the State supreme Court.
Suit was brought by the city 20 col
lcCt taxes assessed against the Santa
Rosa Infirmary. the city diSpuJing the
claim Of the institution that it was
exempt from taxation because it was
owned by n religious organization and
was operated in part. at least, III 4
charity basis. The case was tried IN
the I3rd District Court and decided II
favor Of the Santa Rosa. II was then
taken to the Fourth Court Of Appeals.
Supported by Earned Revenues.
Judge Edward Smith. in n decision
which covers several typewriter pages.
and cites many authorities, holds that
the Santa Rosa does not constitute an
institution Of purely public charity. as
contemplated in the constitutional pro-
visions which exempt certain lnstitu-
tiouS and organizations from taxation.
First. Judge Smith holds, the Santa
Rosa was not founded wholly or in part
upon any gifs devise or beQue~t but
,,,...fity 1nVfv-trl hN derived
FROM its operation. The institution, the
court ECld, is NOT a gift, nor has 1t
been dedicated entirely IN the public or
to charity. but the title is held unCon-
ditioually by a private corporation hav-
ing unrestricted power to use, or dis
pose Of il.
Judge Smith further held that the in
StitutiOn is not maintained or support
cd By donations or contributions. hut
on revenues derived from its operation
in competition with ethrr institutions
and AT 81 large profit. The santa
Rosa. the court points out ~ accUmi-
lating large profits which do not :, 10
charity but to enlarge its estates.
Charity Merely Incidental.
Continuing. Judge Smith says that
the institutions dominant purposes ami
accomplishments are tn "aCcu I"lIi"
corporate urufit> and increase o., c'r-
poratr assets and thar far charity i
diSpcnsrS is merely irrid"n al 'o ~ad
purposes" II is plainly shown. the
court held, that it is Nnt established
or maintained u~ a. public benefit.
$50 long as these properties are 81
opcrat d. Judge Smith says. ami
held lust 50 long should they be aad"
to bear their just share of the burdens
of the government under the U.',cr-
ton of which they were crrnted. are
operated. and do thrive.
Had the trial court pSC'rta'nrd the
amount Of taxes due. Judge smith says
in his opinion. the appellate court
would have rendered judgment IN ta'-
or of the city. As this YES ny Sh""l
in the transcript however. r. court
rcmandpd the case To the trial court.
with instructions 10 ascertain ih"
amount and render Judgment n tdvnr
of the city.
Other Case Acted On.
Other proceedings Of the court were
Cases submitted: business Mems oil
/ Company vs.. William Priddy, from
| Tarrant.
Wiley Caraway ". J. G. Ro,aberS
Ct al from Gonzales.
Cases decided City ut SAN Antonl"
VS.. Santa Rosa Iufirmary. frO.n B-Nar,
reversed and remandcd; affirmed, 6. II.
HodgkinSon W. Albert Pena. from
Bexar: Paul J. Corn W. BurtOn-Rouud-
tree Motors Company from BeXar;
G.. L. HindcS vs.. Fred G.. Lock, from
BeXar.
Motions acted on: Motions for re-
hearing ovcrruled: John StitZ V. Ma
tional Refining and Producing Com
many, from San Patricid: Household
Furniture Company W. Francisco A.
yarado. from Bcxar: William Clover .
al vs.. Paula NJ. de Clover ct al. from
Webb: Calvin u. Moody vs. Early Eos
fer COmpa..v. from \upCPS