county M:'aloPem taxes. Hon. GeorgeR. Killam,page 3, (WW-420)
ArticleVIII, Section2 of the Constitutionof the State of Texas, has empoweredthe Legislatureto exemptfrom taxationcertain enumeratedproperties,among which are "- . . institutfonsof purely public charity." In pursuanceto this particularconstitutional grant, the LegislatureenactedSection7 of Article7150, V.C.S. Article 7150 reads, in part, as follows:
"The followingpropertyshall be exempt from taxation,to-wit:
"7. Public charities.I All buildingsbelongingto institutionsof purelypublic charity,togetherwith the lands belongingto and occupiedby such Institutionsnot leased or otherwiseused with a view to profit,unless such rents and profitsand all moneys and creditsaru appropriated by such institutionssolelyto sustainsuch institutionsand for the benefitof the sick and disabledmembersand their familiesand the burial of the same, or for the maintenance of personswhen unable to providefor themselves,whether such personsare members of such institutionsor not. An institutionof purely public charityunder this artiole is one which dispensesits aid to its membersand others in sicknessor distress,or at death,withoutregard to poverty or riches of the recipient,also when the funds,property and assets of such institutionsare placed and bound by its laws to relieve,aid and administerin any way to the relief of its memberswhen in want, sicknessand distress, and providehomes for its helplesssnd dependentmembersand to educateand maintainthe orphansof its deceasedmembers or other persons."
It is clear that the charitabletrust under considerationis an institutionof purelypublic charitywfthin the meaningof Section2 of ArticleVIII of the Texas Constitotionand Section7 of Article 7150, V.C.S. State v. Settegast,254 53-w.925 (Comm. APP. 1923)0 We, therefore,pass to a consider&&m of whether exemptionmay be accordedthe propertyin qusstlonunder the facts in this case.
In Morris v. Lone Star Ch. Ro. 6, R.A.M., 68 Tex. 697, 5 S.W., 519 (1887)the court held that under Section2 of ArticleVIII of the Constitution,the bgislature could exempt from taxationthe buildingsof "institutions of purely public charity"but that such authorizationextendedonly to such buildingsaud groundsas were used exolusivelyand owned by such institutionsand that exclusive use meant the actual and directuse for the purposesof the chari- table association. - ^.
Hon. GeorgeR. Killam,page 4, (WW-420)
In the S&t= case, supra,the court held that the trustees _ -. ^ owea tax08 on oertalnpropertieswhich wore a psrt of the Hermsnn HospitalEstate. In that case the will had establishede.trust far the purposeof buildingand maintaininga charitablehospital. The trusteeswere conductingthe businessof -aging the propertyand constructingthe hospitalunder the name of the H-nu Hospftal Estate. The propertyin questionInvolvedsix rent houses;and all rents and incometherefromwere to be uasd solelyto supportand maintainthe HornannHospital. The court pointedout that the hospitalitselfwas to be built on other propertyand that the propertyin questionwas not being used directlyin connection with the bullding and operationof the hospital'but or- In Its maintenance.
In Hedgecroftv. City of Houston,150 Tex. 654, 244 S.W. 2d 612 (1952).the court was concernedwl,th ,thsPollowinafacts. The H~dg&~ft'Corporation had acquiredtitle to the propertyin questionthroughgift and oonveyar~cs on December30, 1948. Before that tfme the corporationhad agreed with a constructioncompany to make the necessaryalterationsand repairs of the propertyto fit It for the operationof a hospital,clinicand trainingschool; and beginnfngwith the week endingJuly 7, 1948, and oontlnulng until December29, 1948, the constructioncompanyhad been preparing plans for repairsand alterations. From August 1, 1948, through December27,