THE ENERAL
0F TEXAS:...
t
Hon. Cullen B. Vance Opinion No. V-567
County Attorney
Jackson County Ret The authority of the
Edna, Texas Commissloners~ Court
to apply the proceeds
of a’special hospital
maintenance tax .to-
ward, the construction
of a county hospital.
Dear Mr. Vance;
Your request for our opinion on the hereln-
above captioned matter reads, in part as follows:
“On January 26, 1946, an election
was held throughsrrt~,Jaaksaal,la~ty on the
question of whether or not the qualified
voters of Jack,son County wanted a County
Hospitala This election was held on a
Petition signed by 557 persons, I am at-
taching hereto a copy of the Petition,
omitting the signatures, however, togeth-
er with the Order of the Commissioners~
Court, as entered in ,Volume IC Page 529 of
the Minutes of the Commissioners1 Court
calling this election, The results of
the election as shown on Page 81 of Re-
turns of Eledtions revealed that 730 af-
firmative votes were cast and 132 votes
were cast against the Hospital+
USubsequent to the election, Mauritz
Brothers of Ganado, Texas, deposited to
the credit of Jackson County the sum of
$.75,000000 toward the construction of a
hospital9 This was later supplemented~ by
an additional gift of $25,OOO,OO. Other
gift’s from various in$$viduals and firms
.a$;r;Fted the sum of approximately $6,-
0 @
“Following the above referred to el-
ection the Commissioners’ Court levied a
specla 1 hospital maintenance tax and there
has now accumulated in this fund the sum of
Hon. Cullen B. Vance - Page 2 (~-567)
approximately $34,000.00. The County is
attempting to get a Federal Grant toward
constructing this project, but due to ris-
ing prices, apparently is going to take
considerably more money than is now avail-
able, unless the County can use the $34,000.-
00 now accumulated in the Special Hospital
Maintenance Fund. J shall, therefore, ap-
preciate an opinion from your Department as
to whether or not this money now accumulated
in the Maintenance Fund can be used by the
Commissioners’ Court of this County toward
the construction of the proposed hospital.”
In Attorney General’s Opinion No. V-518 it was
held;
“Inasmuch as your opinion request re-
flects the establishment of such a hospital
from current funds, the costs for the pur-
chase would necessarily come from the Perma-
nent Improvement Fund, and the costs of the
operation and maintenance from the General
Fund.”
In the case of Carroll’v. Williams, 202 S. W.
504, the Supreme Court of Texas said;
“Moreover, in this instance the at-
tempted transfer of money was not from a fund
raised for ‘streets * * * and other permanent
Improvements,’ but was from the general fund
for ‘county purposes,’ which is an entirely
distinct and different fund, and which as we
have attempted to show cannot be applied, law-
fully, on roads and brldges.
“Taxes levied ostensibly for any specific
purpose or class of purposes designated in
section 9 of article 8, supra, must be applied
thereunto, in good faith; and in no event and
under no circumstances may there be expended,
legally, for one such purpose or class of pur-
poses, tax money in excess of the amount raised
by taxation declaredly for that particular pur-
pose or class of purposes6 But this rule would
not prevent the proper expenditure, for such
purpose or purposes, of any unexpended balance
Hon. Cullen B. Vance - Page 3 (V-567)
in the corresponding fund brought over from
any previous year or years.”
Applying the principles annourked.in this case
to the situation about which you inquire, tax money rais-
ed for hospital maintenance purposes comes from the gen-
eral fund levy, whereas tax money for the establishment
and construction of a county hospital comes from the
permanent improvement levy. Therefore, the Commission-
ers’ Court is without authority to appropriate hospital
maintenance funds for hospital construction purposes,
for such appropriation would constitute an unlawful
transfer and diversion of constitutional funds. Article
VIII, Sec. 9, Const, of Texas; Carroll v. Williams, supra.
This opinion is not to be construed as passing
upon the validity of the maintenance tax levied by the
Commissioners* Court, nor upon the sufficiency of the e-
lection which was held for the purpose of establishing a
county hospital.
The Commissioners’ Court is not author-
ized to use money in a Hospital Maintenance
Fund (General Fund) for the puf;rp;sev;;Icon-
structlng a county hospital,
Sec. 9 of the Texas Constitution; ‘Carro i 1 v.
Williams, 202 s. w. 504.
Yours very truly,
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
OF TEXAS
BY
WTW:wb Assistant
APPROVED: .
ORNEYGENERAL