You have requested opinion concerning the authority of the Ector Court to c,ontract with and make pcym?nte to a private County Commireionerr for obst,etrical care of charity patientr when there ia a county hoepita hospital in the County.

Article 4430, V. T. C. S., provider in part: If there ia a regular l rtablirhcd public hoepita in the county, the commirbionere court &all provide rending the indigent rick of the county to ouch hospital.

However, article 4491, V. T. C. S., providea: Any commirrionerr court of any county which ham no city with a population of than ten thousand ptrronr, may contract for a period not exceeding one year, with any regularly incorporated society or hospi- tal or municipality within the county maixitaining a hoapi- tal, or with any other adjacent county, for the cart of any or all of the sick, diaearcd or injured inhabitanta of the county, upon ouch terms and conditionr a# they may by agreement think proper. Where a county hair ccr- the board managcrr may con- tablirhed much hospital, tract with any regularly incorporated society or hoapital or city or town within the county maintaining a hoapitel, for~the care of rome of the rick, injured or diacaacd pcrronm applying for admiaaion to the county hospital. In our view the acopc of article 4491 is unclear, for the second sentence

contain* no exprerr limitation concerning counties containing a city of a population *2 The Honorable Bffl McCoy Prior to its 1925 rcvirion and codification, the eecond

of over 10,000 persons. I#[ w] here a county has established a hoepita aa sentence of article 4491 applied required by Section 15 of, this Act. . . . ” Acta 1913. 33rd Leg. , ch. 39 at 77. Section 15 of that Act applied to “each county which . . . has a city with a popu- lation of than ten thousand persons. . . . ” Acts 1913, at 77. Thus the statute ae originally enacted by the Legislature contained two independent authori- zations, the first concerning counties without a city of a population of more than 10.000 persons and the second concerning counties containing such a city. Since the second rentcncc of article 4491 contains no limitations concerning the size of cities within a particular county, in opinion there is no restriction thereon. Thus the second sentence of article 4491 is not limited by the first; any county maintaining a county hospital may contract with a private hospital for the cart of some of its patients. Set Attorney General Opinion8 M-85 (1967), C-334 (1964).

Article 4438 does not expressly prohibit such a contract. Since it is not within the statutes pertaining to county hospitals and since its enactment was prior to that of article 4491, in our opinion it should not be construed to conflict with the authorization contained in article 4491.

While there is dicta in the cast of Willacy County v. Valley Baptist Hospital, 29 S. W. 2d 456 (Tcx. Civ. App. --San Antonio 1939, no writ), which could support another conclusion, article 4491 was not considered and the county involved did not maintain a county hospital. Accordingly, we believe article 4491 muet control your question. Of course article 4491 provides for a contract executed by the Board of Matigers of a county hospital rather than by a commis- sioners court.

SUMMARY The Board Managers of Ector County’s

county hospital may contract with and make pay- obstetrical

ments to a private hospital cart of charity paticntn.

General of Texas *3 . I... .

XL&fy?D

. rst , raistant

Opinion Committee

jad:

pa 2944