Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN 11.62 Fgton v. saottish Rite I36naro;lsat wraoclation, 230 S. w. . %'%lY6WU3tther6tOthe X.@.616tUr6 -866d ~U%TOUV aatv relative totcu:6%6z@&a6. Thel66tanmtnmntb6lng hrtlale 7l.80,Vernon% iknno?&M CW.1 Statut66, which SOd6, iIl6Ot~ 66 this OpiniOB ie ‘3WMlWBd, W iO~OW51 ...Md 6ll6UUhbaildin&6~ end aged by ISIS of aa 6OIl675==6ChOO1~~666; ..." (=+QSis-O-6) To deter&m the uestlon in~0lv6d here it i6 ?iZ%t 1690666627t0 SrrlW at the OOrXWt XWle OS aOnStrUa- tlon a2 ap lid to tax ~tlom. mtiale VIII se&ton 1,cUths EonstitutlonoiT6xs rovldes thatalitaree shall be eqml aal rmifora. It 28 the ah&i thaty of a ~ttoaitardpro~~laatOfhogsmoa6nbpropsrtJr or oitiaetm and in turn it %6t ho duty or the oltlaem t0 bear & fair ratabfspropmtioa of tha (3 6ffOcdi.Z&such protection. Th6m?ore, critbsll6rau6tptiymr it0 prot6Qt1on, thu6 fair and 6qu61 dlstributfon of the burtlea dhioh daandr ofthove rharfry:fts b6na?lt6. 'LBrattia isthem- tore the rule, and emnptloa fraa tor6tion the esoeptloa. C00ley 0n TaratiOa, 864an4 Edith, p.804; f&b006 TO et al, 74 oa. US. sreaptloa, be* t,he ecmpfirm to%F general rulea is sot tavorsd, and, wh6a found to 0-t the enaotaeatby rhiohit isgM%a will riotb6 tublargd by OOn6trUtJtiOn, but, on the Oontmhq ti3.l be 6triOtl.yQoa- StPUab. f&n46 Y. khrroa,4 8. W. 619 # Santa Rosa Iafina- cry v. San iiatoalo,230 8, w. 0311 Co6ley on Tazstloa, ewond EdItIon, pp. 204.203. wh6th6rorrmtTyl6r Thed6t;smtna~VO Lioaorablewarren %.oDotild,page s (~lOO,OOO.OO), hsrlng two thOUBand shares Of a par Value of FISty Dollars ($50.00) eaoh. Thsss shares are subjeat to entering Into the ohannels of Oossisrao. Fe aaaaot say thst the i.nve6t6mnt or sapltal in the oorporatlen Is 66 endowsent for ths bonsflt ot ths mblio at large, or that ths buildlrqs in wh1ah it siightbs Invssted lrs bar ths pub110 use. w'eare, thersfom, of the opinion that the sohool l.6 qusstfon 16 not a WpublIc aollegs" 8s that tera IS used in Artlale 7150, Vernon*6 Annotated Civil Statutes. We next pass to the question of the lffeot on suah sohools og the portion of Artiole 0150, Vernoa*s An- notrted Civil Statutes, whloh provides far an exemptlen for all buIlblng and owned by persons or awoolatIon6 of purge As 6tated sbo~s our inVsst%@.tlon d18010666 that ths bulldlngs owned by Tyler ComsisralalColleg6 are not used 6xalu6lrely by the oollsgs ror sohool purgo608. In View of suoh faot, we find it unnepes6uy to paw upon the qwstion as to whether or not saoh boilding would bs exsmpt 1n ths eVeat It i6 wed sx~lusl~sly iOr sohool pur&Mses. For, the use o? a prt of the property for other than 6ohool purpo606, yl,","In any ersnt rsmots the buildings Xrom the exssip Red Y. Johnson, 5S Tex. 884; EdmuMs f. P! Antonio, 55 S: t. 495l Llttls Th6atM I. City Of XNlla8, l&C 3. 0. (Ed) 86S. You are rurther adrlred that w4 40 not belier0 ths term wbulldlng- should bs l xpanQsd to InOluae ~6rsonal iTears of the opinion that if sooh sohools are ifixs?to ally6X66Qt1On at all it Is llmlted to the bulld- 146 and lsnds ussd exala6lv6ly and owned for sehsol pur- poses and dew not apply to the psrsonal propsrty. On June &O, 1034, ?onorabls Scott Oalws, A66%6t- ant AttorMyGeasral, in a lbeter oplalon, held that ths furniture and fIxtur68 of sush 6OhOoh were sxempt. Insa- far as thsrs la a oonfllot between thi8 opinion anO that of the Xonorabl6 Scott M.nss, ths lattsr is hsrsby OXph6664 orurmled . IWnorable Warrea !doDonald, pI3BTe 4