_-,
-,-’
Hon. Charles B. Ilartln OpinionNo. O-3083
County Auditor Re: Whether land belonging to
Marshall, Texas College of Marshall Is exempt
from taxation.
Dear Sir:
.In your letter of January 24, 1941, you inquire
whether the reti property ~belonglngto the -Collegeof Marshall
Is exempt from taxation. Pea advise that this College Is owned
by the Baptist General Convention of the State of Texas, and
that most of the zeal estate mentioned In your letter Is occu-
pled byethe plant :properand is used exclusively for educational
purposes. However, you advise that a part of the land, given
to the College about the year 1915, is farmed by the Institution
and that the money derived from such farming Is used for the
maintenance of the college. In the event any of said property
Is found’to be exempt from taxation you Inquire whether it is
the duty of~the assessor and collec4or of that county to strike
such property from the rolls, or whether It Is the duty of the
commlssloners~court to enter an order striking the same from
the rolls.
Section 2 of Article 8, State Constltu$lon, reads In
part as follows:
n*** the legislature may, by general laws,
exempt from taxation*** all buildingsused ex-
clusively and owned by persons or associations of
persons for school purposes and the necessary
furnltuz’eof all schools and property used excla-
slvely and reasonably necessary In conducting any
association engaged In promoting the religious,
educatlonsl and physical development of boys
girls, young men or young women operating ulldera
State or Rational ~organisatlonof like character;
also the endowment~fundr of such lnstitntlonsof
learning and religion not used with a view to prof-
it; and when the same are Invested in bonds or
mortgages, or In land or other-propertywhich has
been and shall hereafter be bought In by such in-
stitutions und‘erforeclosure sales made to satisfy
or protect such bonds or mortgages, that such ex-
emption of such land and property shall continue
Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 2
only for two years after the purchase of the
same at such sale by such Institutionsand no
longer, and Institutionsof purely public
charity; and all laws exempting property from
taxation other than the property above mentioned
shall be null and void."
Article 7150, Revised Civil Statutes, exempts from
taxation, among other properties,the following:
"All public colleges, public academles,and
all endowment funds of Institutionsof learning
and religion not used with a view to profit, and
when the same are Invested In bonds or mortgages,
and all such buildings used exclusively and owned
by persons or associationsof persons for school
purposes; provided that when the land or other
property has been, or shall hereafter be, bought
In by such Institutionsunder foreclosure sales
made to satisfy or protect bonds oremortgages ln
which said endowment funds are Invested that such
exemption of such land and property shai1 continue
for two years after the purchase of the same at
such sale by such Institutionsand no longer.*
The term "bulldlngs,Uas used In-the above constl-
tutlonal and statutory provisions, Includes the land upon which
the same stand as well as such grounds thereabout as are used
In the actual operation of the school, such as yards and recrea-
tional grounds. St. Edwards’ College vs. Morris, 17 S.W. 512
82 Tex. 1; Cassiano VS. Ursuline Academy, 64 Tex. 673. But, It
was not Intended that all the land owned by such schools should
be exempt from taxation without regard to Its use. It must be
used gxcluslvq& for school purposes In order to fall within
the exemption. The fact that the proceeds of the farming opera-
tions conducted on some of this land are used In maintaining
the school does not make the exemption operative. The St. Ed-
wards' College case, supra, Is closely In point, and we quote
from the opinion of Judge Stayton in that case as follcwst
I'*** The findings of fact relating to the use of
the land are as follows: ‘The buildings used for
said school on January 1, 1889, were situated on
the 499 acres of land part of the De Valle grant,
belonging to plalntlfh. These buildings Included
recitation rooms dormitories,gymnasium, and out-
houses, which, with the play-grounds, Included about
five acres of said land. Of the balance of said 499
.
iIon. Charles 3. hartin, page 3
icres, about 160 acres was in a state of cultl-
vation (that is, was a farm ) but only about
two-thirds of It was cultivaged in l&85. On
this farm ;ias an orchard and garden. The remaln-
der of the land was a pasture. The school was
and Is a boarding school and had a large number
of students boarding in the institution, at a
cost of about fifteen dollars per month. Said
houses and five acres of land were owned and
used exclusively for school purposes, January 1,
1889. The balance of said 499 acres of land was
used as a farm and a pasture and the produce
raised on the farm during 1889 was used to feed
the stock on said farm, consisting of 6 horses,
2 mules, 85 cattle, and 24 hogs. The pasture was
used to pasture the farm stock, not for hire.
The hogs slaughtered were used to supply tables
for the boarding school, -- no stock sold, no
produce sold, for profit or revenue, but only to
supply the tables for said boarding school.’ The
court ascertained the value of the 3 ~acres held
to be exclusively used for school purposes in
proportion to the entire assessment, and dissolved
the injunction theretofore granted, In so far as
it restrained the sale of the balance of the fund,
to enforce the balance of the assessment. It IS
now claimed that the court erred in not holding
the entire tract exempt from taxation. *** The
construction to be placed on the word lbuildlngs’
was considered in Casslano v. Ursullne Academ
64 Tex. 676, and in Red v. Morris, 72 Tex. 5#:
10 S. W. Rep. 681. These are cases in which exemp-
tion of city property was claimed on the ground
that It was used exclusively and owned by persons
or associations of persons for school purposes, and
It was held that the word ‘buiLdlngs,Q would Include
the lots on which they stood, the whole being used
for school purposes, which embraced the recreation
of pupils attending the school. *** It may have
been convenient to have lands, In connection with
those used for school purposes, that might be used
for agricultural or pasture purposes, and thus sup-
ply much that went to furnish the table of a board-
ing school; but we are of opinion that the lands
so used by appellant were not used exclusively for
school purposes. The court below held to be exempt
from taxation as much of the land as the constitu-
tion would permit the legislature to exempt, or as
Hon. Charles R. Martin, page 4
It had attempted to exempt, and Its judgment
will be affirmed."
From the above our opinion follows that the land on
which the school plant Is located and which is used exclu-
sively for educational purposes, Including the necessary
yards and recreational grounds, Is exempt from ttiatlon
and should be stricken from the rolls by the Assessor-Col-
lector. However the land which Is farmed Is not exempt
under the Constl&lon and should be kept on the rolls.
Yours very truly
ATTORNMGENRRAL
OF TEXAS
By /s/ Glenn R. Lewis
Glenn R. Lewis, Assistant
APPROVED FEE415, ~1941
/s/ Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEY GRNEiRAL
OF TEXAS
APPROVED:OPINION COMMITTEE
BY: BWB, Chairman
GRL:js:wb