OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
February 20, 1939
!lonom,bls J. Ii. Jones
County AUditor
Aiohita Palls, Tsxaa A
Dear Sir: Opinion I::,. O-30
Ho 1 Xn:n moo tax If aupport *
oounty
41 ho al.
Imticlo 4478 I?.3. 1925
and collect taxes for the
established nnd
Article\$ Xov%>ntuLes, provides in part as fol-
lows 1
suhit to such votora at a speciul or regular election
t1:e ?ropoaitlon cf ionuin; bonds in such orw.roi;ate
mount ac uay be desisnnted in said petition for the
ostnblichinC or onlariing of suoh hoopit:tl. Lhoncver
shy such proposition shall receive a i;iaJority of the
votes of tho qualified property tax payera voting at
euoh el.eotlon, mid oowim?ionere court shall ilstabllsh
and lialntainsuch hospital and nhalL1 have the following
povcera
r
I'
-.
.
.’
. ” _
‘.
. i ,‘
,. i ,
,
Hon. J. .R. Jones, February 20, 1939, ?a.-e 2
“3. To cn\lae to be aemssed, levied rind oolleoted,
such tflxos upon the real and porso:ir;l property o~;nod
in the ccunty ne it ahnll dem neccssnry to provide the
func!s for t!le ::.aintennnce theroof, and for 011 ot:ror
necon?ary argcnditures tliorcfor.”
In hydler ,v. Dorder, 115 S. Y . (2d) 702, error re&ed,
the nbove ctntute w-ii? hold to ba constitutional Ln nclthorizln;
-t::a ostablish::ient of a countp hos?itnl. .‘,B a naccsonr;r co;lponent
part or the rifiht and poser to ostablieh the hospItn1, the ri,:ht
; :m also ;:iven to tim corr~~lasionern’ oourt to levy taxes for the
cmintenance thereof. ‘hs vnlidlty of such provlslon rmld Cm?ubtlesa
follow; t:le validity of the statute authorizing the conotluotion
of the hoo:litnl.
8, seation 9, Cmstitution
hrtiale of ‘Lexris, provic~es
that “no ooun.ty, city or tom shall levy &or0 than %Sg for city
or county purpOsOs.n And Article 2352, Revised Civil ;tatutes,
f~llowa the swe \tith the grovision!,bat “said cwrt (oo:~:~isaionars)
sknll hive the power to levy and collect a tax for county gur?oses
not to exceed 25# on the $100.00 valuation.
Tha lavy of a tax for county purposes t::~lild inolude the
li3vy of a tax to itillillt.niIl the3 .hoopltal. In that view, therefore,
your question is given an affimiative nnnrier.
TIml;ovor, your attention 3s called to t~?e 1l:tit of 256 on
the zlOO.00 valuation for oounty purposes, :lnd 1~6vo.a16 ;;mtiln
t,>nt no tax can be levied for the rnaintennnce, of the hosplt&l. Afoh
v~ould !lave the effect of 6wallln:: the levy for genernl ptirpo~:‘es
to exceed the 25$ limit.
Your8 rory truly
Olenn H. Lewis
Aesistant
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion