character of the property, and it is-plain that in those cases there could have been no other holding. ~' ~~NtThe~donst'ituti'nsl'r~equlrem~nt 1% two-fold; thg property liazatbe-ovned by-the ~organi@atIon '~'" claiiing'tiieeXemptIon';it muatbe~ escluiSvv'dlyused bg ~the org&niziitj.tin, &a dlstm~ish~-~6ie~h~'iia~t~al tlse~ by it and a partial mse by others, whether the others pay rent or not.' '"Thesequotations reflect the.'consistenthold+ inga ,ofour courts. Morris v,,tiaona;~68 T&X. 698, 703, 5 3.X. 519; City of Houston v. Scottish Rite HOW'.A. P. Allison, page 4 O-7148
Ass'n,~lll Texa 191;~230 S.,W;978; State v. Settegast, Tex:,Corn.. 3.W:.925: Benevolent & Protective , App.. '254~: Grder.of Elka Lodge v. Cityof Houston, Tex, Civ. App., 44 3,W. 2d 488, writ refused." ,/ Also sesthe .Oase of Markham v. City of Longview, et al, S.X. 2a 695, error refused. t Iiiitlewofthe above-authorities and the facts stat@ in'your ,rHjuest'itinsthe.opin~1oi-i 'of'thisdepartment'that'then .~ hospital property, when erectea'ana operating on the basis above mentioned, wil.1not be ,taxexempt. Yours very truly .,.' .a, :,_,, ,~,,j ATTORNRYGEWERAL OF TEXAS " '~ :' : s, By s/Jos. V; Frnka Jos.'K Frnka Asslstant ,~, APPRO~MUR 22',1946 .': s/GroverSellers: " ATTORNEYGENERALOF'TlSAS i Approved Oplnlon Committee By s/BWB Chairman