
    (58 South. 923.)
    No. 17,991.
    CITY OF SHREVEPORT v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. et al.
    (Nov. 28, 1910.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1911.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Railroads (§ 94*) — Crossing Over Railroad — Ordinances—Reasonableness.
    An ordinance of the city of Shreveport, enacted under its charter (Acts 1898, No. 158), giving it full power over its streets and bridges, etc., makes it unlawful to erect any overhead wooden bridges over any railroad, or make any substantial repairs to such bridges heretofore erected, and requires that all such bridges be built of metal, stone, or concrete, or combinations thereof, and imposes a fine for its violation. Held, that the ordinance was reasonable.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads. Cent. Dig. §| 266-273; Dec. Dig. § 94.*]
    2. Railroads (§ 94*) — Crossing Over Railroad — Ordinances—Violation—‘ ‘ Substantial Repair.”
    The repair of a wooden viaduct, under which railroad tracks ran and over which the street was carried, by changing 40 per cent, of the materials, was a “substantial repair,” within the meaning of the ordinance.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 266-273; Dec. Dig. § 94.*]
    Appeal from First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo; T. F. Bell, Judge.
    Suit by the City of Shreveport against the Kansas City Southern Railway Company and others. From a judgment for defendants, complainant appeals.
    "Judgment set aside, and temporary injunction reinstated and perpetuated.
    D. C. Butler, for appellant. Wise, Randolph & Rendall and Alexander & Wilkinson, for appellees.
   PROVOSTY, J.

The city of Shreveport is given by its charter (Act No. 158 of 1898, p. 295) as full and complete authority over its streets and bridges as the Legislature can confer upon a city. In the exercise of this authority, it adopted the following ordinance:

“That it shall be unlawful for any person or for any railroad company to build or erect any overhead wooden bridges over any railroad in the city of 'Shreveport, or make any substantial repairs to any such wooden bridge heretofore erected; but that all such bridges shall be built of metal, stone, or concrete, or combination of the same. That any person or railroad company violdting the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to arrest, and shall be fined in a sum,” etc.

Murphy street, one of the streets upon which there is the most traffic, is intersected by a deep cut made by the railroads, defendants in this case, and over this cut, along the bottom of which are four railroad tracks, the street is carried by a wooden viaduct constructed by the same railroads. The defendant railroads were about to repair this bridge, which had become rotten and unsafe, when the present suit was brought to enjoin them from doing so, under the above transcribed ordinance.

The defense is that the said bridge is not a menace to the public or to surrounding property, but substantial, strong, and safe, needing only ordinary repairs, and that the said ordinance is unconstitutional, illegal, null, and void, because unreasonable and ultra vires.

Judgment went in favor of defendants in the lower court. We are not advised upon what grounds. Certainly the repairs necessary to be made were not mere ordinary repairs, but “substantial,” within the purview of said ordinance. Forty per cent, of the material had to be changed. And we can see nothing unreasonable in an ordinance requiring street viaducts to be constructed, or 'reconstructed, of a material less inflammable and less liable to decay than wood.

The judgment appealed from is set aside, and the injunction herein sued out is reinstated and perpetuated, at the cost of defendants.  