Arey v. Lindsey

• Decision Date: 23 November 1904
• Citation: 103 Va. 250,48 S.E. 889
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: AREY et al. v. LINDSEY et al.

48 S.E. 889

103 Va. 250

AREY et al.

v.LINDSEY et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 23, 1904.

constitutional law —construction of constitution—retroactive effect.

1. Constitutions, as well as statutes, are construed to operate prospectively, unless on the face of the instrument or enactment the contrary intent is manifest beyond reasonable question.

¶1. See Constitutional Law, vol. 10, Cent. Dig. § 20.

2. Const. 1902, § 117, providing for the enactment of general laws for the organization of cities and towns, and forbidding the passage of special acts in relation thereto; and section 126, directing the General Assembly to provide by general laws for the extension and contraction of the corporate limits of cities and towns, and declaring that no special act for such purpose shall be valid—do-not abrogate or repeal the special act of February 16, 1901 (Acts Ex. Sess. 1901, p. 267, c. 244), amending the charter of a certain town, and extending the corporate limits thereof, subject to the approval of a majority of the qualified voters, but such extension of limits was valid, notwithstanding the constitutional provisions, and although the election provided for was not held until after the Constitution became operative.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Rockingham County.

Suit for injunction by one Llndsey and others against one Arey and others, constituting the mayor and council of the town of Bridgewater. From a decree granting a perpetual Injunction and retiring the cause from the docket, defendants appeal. Reversed.

Conrad & Conrad, for appellants.

John E. Roller, for appellees.

HARRISON, J. By an act of the General Assembly approved February 16, 1901 (Acts Ex. Sess. 1901, p. 267, c. 244), the charter of the town of Bridgewater was amended. This amendment, which extended the corporate limits, was, however, by the terms of the act, not to be effective until it had been ratified and approved by a majority of the qualified voters of Bridgewater precinct residing within the corporate limits proposed by the amendment. To ascertain the wishes of those entitled to vote on the question, the act provided for three special elections, the first to be held on the fourth Thursday in May, 1901, and, if the majority of the votes cast at this election were adverse to the amendment another election could be ordered by the town council at any time after the expiration of six months from the first; and, ifthe approval of a majority of the voters was not secured at the second election, then the council might order a third election to be held after the expiration of twelve months from the date of the second.

The three elections provided for were held, and at the first and second the majority was against the amendment. The third election was held on the 23d of December, 1903, when the amendment was ratified and approved by a majority of the votes cast. Thereupon the appellees, claiming to own property that would be affected by the extension of the corporate limits thus ratified and approved, presented their bill of complaint, praying for an injunction against the mayor and council of the town of Bridgewater, to restrain them from taking any jurisdiction over the territory embraced by the amended charter, and from levying taxes, opening streets and alleys, or exercising any acts of jurisdiction over the new territory as constituting a part of the town of Bridgewater, and further praying that the election at which the amendment was ratified and approved be declared to be illegal and invalid, and that the proposed amendment be declared inoperative.

The injunction prayed for was awarded, and, after a motion to dissolve was overruled, the mayor and council filed a demurrer and answer to the bill. The court overruled the demurrer, perpetuated the injunction, and retired the cause from the docket. This action of the lower court is called in question by the appeal under consideration.

It is insisted that the special act of February 16, 1901, amending the charter oi Bridgewater, was abrogated and repealed by sections 117 and 126 of the Constitution which went into effect July 10, 1902. The contention is that as the act in question, having for its object the extension of the corporate limits of the town, had not been given effect when the Constitution was adopted, it was without effect when the election under it was held in December, 1903.

To sustain this contention it would be necessary to give a...