535 and MoCliataak& Robertsonv. Cottle County,127 S.fni(2d) 319,(dismis-~ sed5, the obligationia the instmt oomtraotis not oontingemtupon the suo- oess of the contractorsia the undertakingwhichthey assume,nor is such obligationSO unoerbainin amount as to make impossiblethe provisionof a 8i.nkiag fund; unlikethe obligationin Ward v. Ci of Big Spring,161 S.W. (2d) 821, reversedoa other grounds, 169 6.K (2d 7 151, in the instantcase ths.oontingency rnhiohcreatesthe obligationis not solelywithia the control of the county;unlikeths obligationin Wderrood v. Howard,1 Sell;(2d) 730 (dismissed)the obligationi8 this sass is not to be disohargedfrcsstaxes alreadyassessed.
Since the iastantcontractexpresslyprovidesthat paymentsare to be made out of the srevenuesof 1944, and/or the anticipatedrevenuesof 1945,s it is impossible.to aaswer the test establishedia Stevensonv. Blaok, supra, by sayingthat at the date of the corntract,the partiesthen oomtemplated that the obligationnmuld be satisfiedout of the currantrevenuesfor the year or out of some fund thea within the immediatecontrolof ths corporation.
Consequently,if ms should bs mistaken in the oonolusionfirst stated above,you ars rsspeotfullyadvisedthat the oontraotis invalidby reason - - h
Hon. Arnold Smith - Page 7 (o-5302)
of its oraatioaof a debt in ooatravmtion of Seation7 of ArticleXI o.f the Tsxas Constitutiono
Tmst~sg that the foregoingfully ummem your inquiries,wu are
ve y t mly yours
R. Dean Moorhead Assistant
APPROVEDJUNE 21, 1943 APPROVED /s/Gerald C. Mann OPINIONCWb5TpEE AlTORl-iEYGENERALOF'TEXAS BYBWB Chairmar