
    ARANSAS COUNTY et al. v. COLEMAN-FULTON PASTURE CO. et al.
    (No. 2822.)
    (Supreme Court of Texas.
    Jan. 31, 1917.)
    Highways <S^103 — Dimitations on the Use of Funds — “Paved Roads.”
    Const, art. 3, § 52, as amended in 1903, authorizing counties, etc., to issue bonds for the construction and maintenance of macadamized, graveled, or “paved” roads and turnpikes, empowers counties, etc., to construct shell roads; roads paved with shell being “paved” roads within the constitutional provision.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Highways, Cent. Dig. §§ 236, 335; Dec. Dig. &wkey;>103.]
    Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.
    Suit by the Coleman-Fulton Pasture Company and others against Aransas County and others to restrain diversion of money voted for the construction of roads. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed (180 S. W. 316) an order of the district court dissolving a temporary injunction, and defendants bring error.
    Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, and judgment of the district court affirmed.
    E. A. Stevens, of Rockport, and Dougherty & Dougherty and B. D. Tarlton, Jr., all of Beeville, for plaintiffs in error. Proctor, Vandenberge, Crain & Mitchell, of Victoria, and Templeton, Brooks, Napier & Ogden, of San Antonio, for defendants in error. A. J. Parker, of San Antonio, for Austin Bros.
   PHILLIPS, O. J.

This is substantially a companion case to No. 2821, Aransas County et al. v. Coleman-Fulton Pasture Co. et al., 191 S. W. 553, this day decided.

Under section 52 of article 3 of the Constitution, the qualified tax payers of Aransas County duly voted a bond issue in the sum of $25,000.00 for the purpose of building a roadway about seven miles in extent from Kockport, the county seat, to the Refugio County line. It was proposed to pave the roadway with shell. In order to make a completed roadway it was necessary at four different places in the road to build bridges across shallow stretches of water, in depth about five feet. One of the bridges was to be 2,910 feet long, one 52½ feet long, one 70 feet long, and the fourth 2,100 feet long. One-half the cost of the last named bridge spanning Aransas River was to be borne by Refugio County. The action was an injunction proceeding to restrain the use of the proceeds of the bonds for the paving of the road with shell and for the construction of these bridges as parts of the roadway. A temporary injunction previously granted was dissolved on hearing, and from this judgment an appeal was taken to the honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the Fourth District, where the judgment was reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to issue a temporary injunction restraining the use of the funds of the bond issue in the construction of the bridges, but not for the paving of the road with shell.

It clearly appears that the proposed bridges across these stretches of shallow water were essential parts of the road and necessary to make it a completed road. The case is therefore ruled by the decision in cause No. 2821, Aransas County et al. v. Coleman-Fulton Pasture Co. et al.

There is no doubt in our minds as to roads paved with shell being “paved” roads, within the meaning of section 52, article 3, as amended, and we approve the ruling of the Court of Civil Appeals upon this feature of the case. As to its ruling in respect to the use of the proceeds of the bond issue for the construction of the bridges named, its judgment is reversed. The judgment of the District Court, dissolving the original temporary injunction, is affirmed. 
      <S&wkey;For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
     