‘THE A~ORNEY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
AUSTI~~II. Tsxsan
GERALD C. WARN
Eon. B. Y. Gunningham
bounty Auditor
NavarPo County
Corsioana, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2392
Re: Should Navarro County pay burrial
expenses of patients sent to the
State Sanatorium?
Your recent request for an opinion of~this department on the
question as 5s herein stated has been Teoaived.
We quote from your letter as follows:
%n’several oooasions Navarro County has sent patients to
the State Sanatorium and on some few oooasions these
patients die while in the hospital and the undertakers re-
quire Navarro County to pay for the burial expense.
“We do not set up 5n our budget any monies for this
purpose and I am wondering if these patients after being
sent to the SanatroiUm.and aooepted by:them,are- notwards
of the State of Texas instead of Navarro County.
“So far I have not paid any burial expense and I may be
wrong in my OpiniOn.~ The Dootors tell me that the
Sanatorium or the State of Texas have no money foTthLs
expense. Will you k%ndly advise whether Navarro County
should pay this burial expense or 5.a it an obligation of
the State of Texas.”
Article 2351, Vernonrs hnnotated 0ivil Statutes, provides In
part that eaoh oommissioners t oourt shall “provide for the
burial of paupers”.
Under the,above mentloned’statute it 5s inoumbent on oommis-
aloners* oourts t6 provide for the burial of paupers, and it
has been sald~that this is a duty which oounties owe to every
au er regardless of whether or not he has been formally
iieoyared a pauper. But 5r1 Order to fix the 15ab515ty of the
oounty for burialexpenses, notice should be given to the
proper authorities and their permission obtained for thsburial.
‘,“xW J;l;? Vol. 32, p. 612; MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, 25
. . .
Hon. E. Y. Cunningham, page 2, o-2392
In 0888 of MoNorton vs. Val Verde County, supra, it was held
that a oounty is not liable fOT ooffins of paupera dying b a
pesthouse whloh la in charge of the atate, under tha quarantine
laws.
We quote ,fTom the above mentioned oaae as follows:
“The only question presented for our deolslon 1s as to the
llabillty of the ,oounty for the coffins of those who died
ln the pesthouse while the state had oharge of it under
the quarantine laws. Artiole 1514, aubd. 10, Rev. St.,
makes it incumbent on the oounty to provide for the burial
of paupers ; and this 5s a duty the oounty owes to every
pauper, no matter whether he has been formally deolared a
pauper by the county or not. Whenever it 5s aaoertalned
that a man has died, who was a pauper, it beoomes the duty
of the county to provide for his burial. But in order to
flx the liability of’ the bounty fOT the burlal expenses,
exoept in extreme oases, notice should be given the county
judge, or some oounty oomm5ss5oner. It would open the door
to frauds on the counties if individual citizens are given
the authority to decide who are paupers. The instances
will be rare indeed when any great lnoonvenlenoe will arise
from notifying the proper authorities of the ,death of a
pauper, and obtalnlng proper authority for the burial.
There oan bs no doubt that, if the dootor ln charge of the
peathouse has been in the employ of the oounty, it would
have been responsible for the oofflns furnished for thoffe
who had been confined and died there, if they were paupers.
Under artlole 4090e, Saylee Ann. St., it 5s made the duty
of the governor or the health offioar, ln oases of
emergenay, to declare quarantine against any infectious
or oontagious dleease, and it la provided in article 40901
that all coats and expenses of enforoing and maintaining
any such quarantine shall be paid by the state. The object
of quarantine 1s to prevent the entranoe or spread of
disease, and we are of the opinion that, to fully meet &e
demands of an effiolent quarantine, it would, be necessary
;;a;;;;d5tloualy bury those who die in the quarantlna
. If the state is in oharge of the quarantine, the
expense of the burlal of the paupers who die 5x1 their
oharge would rest upon the state. The burial of those who
die in a quarantine station in charge of the state would~
be a part of the neoesaary ooat and expense’ of enforolng
and malntalnlng the quarantine. Eve if the oounty had
held contr~ol of the pesthouse, it wou \ d seem that the
oharge of maintaining the quarantlne irou3.d Ultimately be
ohargeable against the stats. Artials 4097. We are of the
opinion that there 5s no error .-in the .jyd&men,t, and it ie
aff5rmed.t’ I
&tloIe 3241, ‘Vermont8 Annotated Civil Statutes, reada, In part,
as follows 1
Hon. E. Y. Cunnlngham, page 3* O-2392
“Patients admltted~to said institut~ions ~shall be of
three olaseea, to-wit:
“1. Indigent pub150 patients.
fi2. Non-indigent pub110 ,patIente.
it3. Private patients.
“1ndlgent:publio .patFents are thoae who possess no
property of any klnd nor have any one legally responsible
for their support, and who are unable to reimburse the
State. This olass shall be supported at the expense of the
State.
‘Our, bplnlon‘No. O-2021 holds in effeot that the Board of Con-
trol has power to enter into a binding oontraot for the pre-
paratlon and burial of lnddgent inmates of oertaIn state
eleemosynary InstItutlon. We are enolosing herewith a oopy
of this opinion-for your convenienoe.
A representative of the Hoard of Control has Informed ua that
said Board has made arrangements with various undertakers to
bury Indigent inmates who die in the different eleemosynary
Institutions of the State, inoludlng the State.Tuberoulosis
Sanatorium; where the relatives OT friends do not claim the
remains of the deoeased, and that the State makes no demand
on the county of the resident of the deceased to pay suoh
burial expenses.
In certain articles dlsouaaed in the case of MoMorton v.
Val Verde County, supra, it mas made the duty of the Governor
OT the health offioer, in oases of emergenoy, to deolare
quarantine against infeotloue or contagious diseases, and it
was further provided that. all oosts and expenses of enforcing
and maintaining any such quarantine should be paid by the State.
In view of the above mentioned case of MoMorIson v. Val Verde
County, we believe that Artlole 3241, aupra, Imposing upon
the State the duty to support and pay the expensea oft pub110
$ndIgent patlents would alao impose upon the State the duty to
bury such patients when they die in the State Sanatorium and
various other eleemosynary institutions of the State.
Therefore, you are respectfully advised that it la the opinion
of this .department that Navarro County aould not be liable
‘fdr the burial expenses of publio, indigent patients who reside
in said oounty and die In the State Sanatorium. Such expense
ia an obligation of the State of Texas.
Hon. E. Y. GunnFngham, page 4, O-2392
Trusting that the foregoing fully ahswers your inquiry, we are,
Yours very truly
ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
a/ Ardell Williams
BY
Ardell Williams
Assistant
p$dcf3
.
APPROVEDJUNE 26, 1940
a/ GERALD C. MANN
ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
APPROVEDOPINION CONMITTEE
By BWB, Ohairman