lOQ. tit?. H. Shepprra - Pa&e 2 230 S. V. 9780 The Logfslatum ln exerclsfng this authoz%zation enacted what is now codified 86 Article 7150(7), Ro co SC-

The lerdin(r case on the 8p~liC8tfOtl of this, 0eat?tttut10neu porision and or Artllcle 7150(7) la slltt* &IO8 IQfh'm v. city of, San Antonio, 259 9, Y. 926 (Tex. cora npp. "3. WeI quote rror this CM8 all fell9tts: .

"The constltutlenhl requirement 1s tM- fold; the property must be owned bJ %he apgan- leatlon claiming the exemption; It mumt be exclusively used by the organization, 81, dls- tl~ulshed from 8 partial use by ft, 8nd a partial use by others, whether the others par rent or not.

'*++ifs~prrtotitisrsntedout md the relrtlon of landlord and tsmmt cr68ted, that vesFj fmt would neaea8crrlly dertrw the exclusive use neceasairy to be iWNmd by the uwner to bring Itr property within ths.plaln terns of the Conrtltution, and It has been therefore held, as It was fn that case (Morrlti VT. Maaona, 68 Text. 698, 703, 5 9. W, 519) and in State v. Settegrst, Tex. Coma App,', 254 Se W. 925, that thq lsbs- In& of all OF my part of 6 chssltrble lnstl- tution's property to those not themselves engaged in a wholly charitable work, or the occupancy of even 8 part 0% ths,propertJ by other8 under what aounts to an equivalent situation (Cl- of Houston va Scottlah Rite Aaa'n, 111 Tax. 230 S. I?. g78), destroys the exempt chm8cter of the propert?." It will be noted from the above quotrtion and aaabs cited themln that to deprive an organization of this exemption, there must be a leaslug of rll w part of the building to those not themselves engwsd im wkioll~ charitable world 0~ the occupancy of the pcop@rQ by others under what a8ounts to an equivalent situation0 It seems evident that a physician ba umlng his own equlp- lent in attend%ay patlents confined 1~ the hospital does not come wfthfn this 1nhlbltioa. We iurther do not be- lieve that the leavlrag~of supplies w L pfgslC18Ii when not In use by him in whatever unused space there +y be in the horpltal, as set forth ln your request, rrrilable *3 Em. Qlb4r E. Sheppard - 9-0 3

uaunts to a sltuutlon th@t deetroya ox' iPpafr6 the sxclu- sivsne@e of the uao of t& Bpsrtr B$ %he ho~pltal 80 as to clua~ it to be not sxegD I? 0 It has been reCognlzed that a hospital enterprise neceararlly p~ssupposee the usual accompaniments of suah an institution, and that the pres- ence of these socom9anlaenta 8beW the premises does not afOe& the pFbpar~ 08 betng exal~slv~ly uaed for Its rvoweoL pllrpase. SaMa Roara Infirmary v. city oP San Antonio, suprs. Thaae ac@ompanlments under modern medical science In 0131' opinion include ane8thOdiant sup9lle8.

The Santa Rosa Hospital case has been cited with approval In the recent cam of Martbaa Hospital v. City of &ongvlew, 191 d. W. (2d) vrlt refused. SiBoe %5&a exe*pt!l.on was denied in that case, we desire to point out the distinguishing fscta. A tea&nlcian, al- though he paid no rent for the u8e of 8 laboratory In the hospital, did have exclusive use and personal demand and dlreotion of the laboratory. Ee used It freejly Ln carry- ing on his indlv1dW.l ~aBaratory work 8s the ]Last Texas #edlceL WIBmStQrg, which work w&s perf'ormed On patients eutside the hospital. In the Bmsent case there is no s9~~ifXc p@tiOn of the hO8 ithl used exclusively by the ameathetllrt and over whirh E b haa personal demand and dlrbotlon. He merely haa his gasl mac,hine, which ve understana occupies about twtI and one-half feet of floor Bp8Ce, and 8CCQmp8~fUg atiCleS , when not in ume, pieced In whatever unused space that may be available ML the hospital.

A tax-exempt hospital does not lorre Ate exempt status by reason of Its permittin a physician, who speclallzes In 8dmlnbster ng anesthetics, In attending patients cenflned to that hospital to use his own gas !aachlae and gas and to leave his equfpmeqt and eupplles, when not fn use by him, In whatever unused space there may be available in the hos ltal so as to have h&s apparatus available % w en w Robert 0. llooh Arrfstant ‘.