Court Opinion

ID: 9517365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:14:57.859189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:59.738398
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
concurring in result.
I concur in the result reached in this case. I do not concur in many of the statements contained in the opinion of the court.
I do not agree with the vague suggestion that a number of our past decisions should be overruled, particularly those relating to institutions furnishing care for the sick and the infirm.
Nonprofit institutions for the care of the sick and the infirm have long been recognized as charitable institutions. St. Elizabeth Hospital v. Lancaster County, 109 Neb. 104, 189 N. W. 981; Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital Assn. v. Adams County, 117 Neb. 618, 221 N. W. 959; Allebach v. City of Friend, 118 Neb. 781, 226 N. W. 440; 14 C. J. S., Charities, § 16, p. 447. As stated in 15 Am. Jur. 2d, Charities, § 79, p. 85: “It is universally held that a gift of property for the establishment of a hospital is a valid charitable gift and, as to such a gift, the rule against perpetuities does not apply. The establishment of hospitals is in fact one of the objects enumerated in the Statute of Charitable Uses.”
*604Charitable does not mean that the services of the institution are furnished free of charge. It is well established that a hospital operated not for profit is not deprived of its eleemosynary character by the fact that patients who are able to pay are required to do so. As stated in St. Elizabeth Hospital v. Lancaster County, supra: “No individual, society or corporation receives any pecuniary profit from hospital property, funds or earnings. Surplus and donations are used to enlarge buildings and to improve hospital facilities, equipment and service. The institution is open alike to charity patients and others without regard to race or religious beliefs. Reasonable compensation is required from those who are able to pay it. Only a small percentage of those who seek rooms, food and hospital care, however, can be considered charity patients, but this does not change the charitable purpose for which the property as a whole is used, where no one receives any pecuniary profit from any source. Part of the burdens of government in caring for the poor is borne by the hospital. Charitable gifts and gratuitous services are contributed to the welfare of society. There are therefore reasons for immunity from taxation. The better rule, one sanctioned by precedent, is that the property in controversy is. used exclusively for religious, and charitable purposes within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to exemptions.”
These rules which have become an inherent part of the law affecting such institutions and their property should not be abandoned by this court at this time.