City Council Of Alexandria v. Alexandria County

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CARDWELL
• Citation: City Council Of Alexandria v. Alexandria County, 117 Va. 230, 84 S.E. 630 (1915)
• Decision Date: 11 March 1915
• Parties: CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA. v. ALEXANDRIA COUNTY et al.

84 S.E. 630

117 Va. 230

CITY COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA.

v.ALEXANDRIA COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 11, 1915.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Alexandria County.

Annexation proceedings by the City Council of Alexandria against Alexandria County and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

John M. Johnson, S. G. Brent, and S. P. Fisher, all of Alexandria, for appellant.

Crandal Mackey, of Washington, D. C., Montague & Montague, of Richmond, and C. V. Ford and Moore, Barbour, Keith & McCandlish, all of Fairfax, for appellees.

CARDWELL, J. The city council of Alexandria having, as it was advised, complied with all the requirements of clauses 1 and 2 of section 1014a of the Code of 1904, on the 27th day of June, 1912, moved the circuit court of Alexandria county to make an order authorizing and declaring the annexation to the city of certain territory, belonging partly to the county of Alexandria and partly to the county of Fairfax, described in an ordinance of the council of the city, approved December 29, 1911; and, pursuant to the provisions of the statute in such cases made and provided, the Governor of the state duly designated the Honorable Bennett T. Gordon, judge of the Twenty-Ninth judicial circuit, to hear the case and to determine the issues therein.

At the final hearing the issues in the case were all determined in favor of the defendant counties at the cost of the city, to which judgment the city excepted and duly filed its bill of exceptions, which embodies all the evidence introduced in the case.

In the petition for this writ of error, awarded the city of Alexandria, the action of the presiding judge dismissing its motion is alone assigned as error.

Clause 3 of the statute (section 1014a, supra) provides: The court presided over by some judge designated by the Governor, is to hear the case without a jury, upon the evidence introduced in the manner in which evidence is introduced in common-law cases. The court shall ascertain and determine the necessity for or expediency of annexation; whether the terms and conditions are reasonable and fair; and whether fair and just provisions are made for the future management and improvement of the territory annexed. And if the court is satisfied of the necessity for or expediency of such annexation, and that the conditions and provisions are reasonable and fair, it shall enter an order annexing said territory to the city; butif the court is of opinion that no annexation is necessary or expedient, the motion shall be dismissed. The lines shall be drawn so as to have a reasonably compact body of land, and no land shall be taken which is not adapted to city improvements, unless it is necessarily embraced in said compact body of land or shall be needed in the reasonably near future for development. The court shall take into consideration the development of the city and the loss of revenue to the county.

Clause 1 of the statute provides that, whenever any city or town shall deem it desirable to annex any territory to such city or town, its council shall declare by ordinance that it desires to annex certain territory, and shall describe therein the metes and bounds of the territory proposed to be acquired, and set forth the necessity for or expediency of annexation, and the terms and conditions upon which it desires to annex such territory, as well as the provisions which are made for its future management and improvement.

The ordinance adopted by the council of the city of Alexandria, upon which this proceeding was instituted, is, mutatis mutandis, the same as that adopted by the council of the city of Richmond and proceeded upon in the case of Henrico County v. Richmond City, which came under review in this court. Henrico County v. City of Richmond, 106 Va. 282, 55 S. E. 683, 117 Am. St. Rep. 1001, where the annexation statutes then and now in force in this state were construed and held to be constitutional and valid.

In the case just cited, the opinion of the court by Harrison, J., says:

"Nearly, if not all, of the questions to be determined under the provisions of this act, are questions of fact. The power so much inveighed against in the court to determine the necessity for, or expediency of, annexation, is controlled by the existence of facts and circumstances justifying action. The necessity for, or expediency of, enlargement, is determined by the health of the community, its size, its crowded condition, its past growth, and the need in the reasonably near future for development and expansion. These are matters of fact, and when they so exist as to satisfy the judicial mind of the necessity for or expediency of annexation, then, in accordance with the provisions of the act, the same must be declared. It is manifest that the Legislature, carrying out the provisions of the Constitution, intended, as doubtless did the enactors of the organic law, to require that every annexation should depend upon evidence showing the necessity for, or expediency of, annexation, that the terms proposed are reasonable and fair, and the provisions for the future management of the territory just."

We have been cited to a number of cases decided in other jurisdictions dealing with the rules to govern where a municipal corporation is seeking to annex outlying territory; but these cases, as far as we have been able to examine them, had under review and construction local statutes wholly dissimilar to our statute. So that, as said in this case by the learned judge presiding below, in his written opinion which is a part of the record:

"The present proceeding for annexing territory to a city or town being purely statutory, we must look to our statute, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Appeals, for guidance in this important matter. Henrico County v. Richmond, etc., 106 Va. page 282, 55 S. E. page 683, 117 Am. St. Rep. 1001."

The learned judge, after a view of the territory proposed by the city of Alexandria to be annexed, and also a view of the physical conditions of the city, its streets, sewers, and surface drainage, reasonably made no effort to analyze the evidence introduced, witness by witness, but did in his written opinion set forth what he conceived to be a fair deduction from the evidence as a whole, concluding, in effect, that no annexation to the city of additional territory was necessary or expedient, the sufficiency of the ordinance of the city pursuant to which this proceeding was instituted as to the terms and conditions or provisions made for the future management and improvement of the territory proposed to be annexed not being discussed; so that the dismissal of the proceeding was rested solely upon the ground that the proof did not show that it was necessary or expedient to annex the territory described in the ordinance, or any part thereof.

The statute (clause 3, supra) provides that if the court or judge shall be of opinion that no annexation is necessary or expedient, the motion to annex shall be dismissed; but it also provides:

"If, however, the court or judge shall be of opinion that the annexation of only a part of such territory is necessary or expedient, or" if it shall be of opinion "that said ordinance does not contain fair and reasonable terms, or if it shall be of opinion that more territory should be annexed than was described in the metes and bounds originally set forth, it shall enter a proper order, embodying what it deems reasonable and fair terms upon which the annexation is to be had, and how much of said territory shall be annexed, and shall direct the annexation of such territory in conformity with the terms and conditions 60 prescribed. The court shall so draw, the lines of annexation as to have a reasonably compact body of land, and shall also see that no land shall be taken into said city which is not adapted to city improvements unless necessarily embraced in said compact body of land, or which the city shall not need in the reasonably near future for development. * * * "

In other words, when the evidence, considered with respect to the health of the community, the city's size, its crowded condition, its past growth, and its present needs, as well as its needs in the reasonably near future, for development and extension, does show that some portion of the land proposed to be annexed to the city should be annexed, it is made the duty of the court to enter a proper order, embodying what it deems reasonable and fair terms upon which the annexation is to be had, and how much of the territory sought to be annexed shall be annexed, and to direct the annexation of such territory in conformity with the terms and conditionsprescribed in the order. Henrico County v. City of Richmond, supra.

In the case at bar we cannot say that the evidence introduced should have been deemed sufficient by the trial judge to have required him to order and direct the annexation of all the territory described in the motion of the city of Alexandria, but are of opinion that the proof in the case clearly shows that it is both necessary and expedient to annex some part of this territory to meet the city's needs now as well as its needs in the reasonably near future. We could not in an opinion of reasonable length analyze the evidence introduced, consisting of a mass of documents and the testimony given by more than 100 witnesses, but will only undertake to state, as far as is deemed necessary, the facts not controverted and what is conceived to be a fair deduction from the evidence as a whole, to which the provisions of our statute, as interpreted by this court in Henrico County v. City of Richmond, supra, are to be applied.

The city of Alexandria was founded in 1748, and its limits, by amended charters, have been several times enlarged, and once (in 1871), for political reasons, diminished to those now existing; so that the land area within the present corporate boundaries is 713 acres—a little more than one square mile. It...