the Leglslatur by general lawsi to ~exemptfrom taxat1on~"1nst1tut1ons of purely public chaslty.. Section 7 reads as follows:
- 1073- InorableG. F. Steger, page 3: $42%)
"7. Publl~~.Charltles.All buildings and personal property belonging to lnstitut$onsof purely public charity, Cogeth~ wlth'the l&ridsbelonging to and occupied by such~lnsti.tutlonsPnotleased or other?wiseused-tiitha view to-profit, unless such ren'tsand proflts.andall moneys and.credi. appropriatedby suqh instltutlons.solelyto auataln.~uahXnstltutlonsand for the benefit of the sick anddisabled members and their families and the burial of the.sama,..orfor..themaintenanceof persons when unable to provide forthemselves, whether such persons are members.of such +ns.tltutlonsor not. An institutionof purely public charity under this article Is one whlciidispenses..'tts aXd . to lts.memberaand others In sickness or distress; .or death, poverty OF'riches of ,theri&ipietit;-also '~itheq.Afii~s;..'prbparty,~and aaaets,of.such lnst$tutlons'are mced.aid.boutid.bg its law'to'rclieve';~Sd-.aha~dmini'ster ,$ll.a'liyiiay. to :thwrellef of ita members.whefi. ~BSS and.distress. and provlde~homesfor its helpl$ss and dependeat members and I?"educate and~malntaln the rirphans or&her personsf. 'and'any' ~'Its'..deceriaed~lliembers oo'rpor6tldn -'state of a'hon-pxQ?ftatidpVFely charitable nature ar).d..fmhied..;Por the Oh%rltable'andb&evoSent mrposes of .. wyregWn&~cq&ty t0 an$mals,-;topromote humane,alid.Hnd treatmerit' an$malsJ and to'aid and.asslat by all ,I$@1 'andprdper maan$.the enforcemen%of the laws of this state: for the preventionof cruelty to an+mals of every ld.ndAndy natwe." ~(Ea~phasls added.! Xn.determlnlngwhether the property under considerationIs xe@pt It must be kept In mind that legislativeexemptions are sub- eqt to the .&le,of strict construction.City of Wichita Falls v. m$70,SYW.2d 777 (Tex.Civ.Ap 1943,'error ref.)* Clty~o; nlo v. YMCA* 285 S.W. 844 ~&x.Clv.App. 1926 &or re ) !SO'%nydoubta to whether 6~ not the tixemptlonl~'valld Is.& l
e resolved against allowltigthe exemption. Hedgecroft v. City of @uston; 150 Tex. 7%. 244 S.W.26 632 (1951). -In addltibn. a claim -5K sptlon must bi?ivithlnnot onlg tlieie ie&slative-definition of plrely mbllc charity,", but also within the constitutionalgrant City of~Houston v. Scottish Rite Benevolent As8'n.j
" ~The~Texas.SupremeCourt has on several occasions set out the .eflnltlon and test of charity in the context df.ad valorem taxation nd;exemptlon. In the City of Houston v. Scottish Rlte~Benevolent ;asOclatlonUl Texi 191 230 S.W. 968 981 (1921), the court de- ggd:"purely public charity" thusly:,"
Honorable 0. F. Steger, page 4 :(I&224).
"In,OUP: opinlon;',the Legislaturemlght._r!ason- ably cohclude that an institutionwas one of .'pure&y pubPlc :charlty.~~where:~ Flrst, It made no gain or profit; second, It ,accompllshedends wholly benev- olent; and third, it benefited persons, Indefinite In numbers and.in pe~aona~lltlesby preventing them, through absolute gratuity from becoming burdens to soclety~and to the state." The,court~furtherelaborated on the "quid pro quo" test above by stating at page 981.: "Chirl~y need not be ufilversaltolbe public. It ia public ~iihen-.St affects,all.the people of a' communitiyor,se&e bj?;azkmlrig'to a ina$erlal,exr tent that:~whlch otherwis6'M.ght,become,the.:'dbll- gatl"r or ,duts.ofthe'commrinity?r~ftate;"' .InRiver Oaks Garden Club i.~Cl&of Xouaton;'~370S;W~.?d 851 (Tei.Sup..1963) the'court repeated.thetests above; while holding taxable a n&-profit corporationwhose pur,poaewas,prl- marlly.to educate and enlighten Its members and,the public In the art af growing and,arrangingflowers. ..Tbecourt rested,lts deck- alon that this was not a purely public charltg-on the ground,that the activity was not ane which the governmentsIs under,an..obllgatlon or duty to finance,. Eurlng.the.c~ourseof this opinion while dls- cussing the legislativedefinition, the court said: %hlle the primary purpose of the legislative