Hood S. v. The City Of Wheeling S.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1920
• Citation: 85 W.Va. 578
• Parties: T. E. Hood et als. v. The City of Wheeling et als.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

85 W.Va. 578

T. E. Hood et als.

v.The City of Wheeling et als.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 27, 1920.

Decided February 17, 1920.

1. Statutes Bill Passed to Second Reading May be Then

Amended in Usual Mode or by Adoption of Substitute Bill.

A bill regularly introduced and recommended by the proper committee to pass, read once and advanced to be read a second time on a subsequent day, may while at that stage of its progress be amended, either in the mode most frequently pursued, or by a substitute offered and adopted in lieu thereof, provided the substitute is not inconsistent with the main purpose and object of the original bill. (p. 582).

2. Same Readings on Original Bill May be Included as Part of

Required Readings of Substitute Bill.

A substitute bill, if germane to and not inconsistent with the main purpose and object of the original bill, need not itself be read three times on three different days, pursuant to the requirement of section 29 of article 6 of the Constitution, but may include as part of its required readings those had before the substitution was made. (p. 588).

3. Same Titles of Original and Substitute Bills Not Inconsistent

Because Title of Latter Contains More Detail.

The titles of a bill to amend the charter of a city and of a substitute therefor having in view the same general scope and object are not necessarily incongruous or inconsistent merely because the title of the latter contains a more detailed statement of the legislative history of the origin and subsequent amendments of the charter. (p. 583).

4. Same Title of Amendatory Act Containing Provisions Ger-

mane to Object of Original Act Simply Referring to Section of Original Act Intended to be Amended is Sufficient. Where the title of an original act sufficiently expresses its object in the manner required by the Constitution, an act amendatory thereof or to be substituted therefor, if its provisions are germane to the purpose expressed in the title of the original and not inconsistent therewith, may, by its title, simply refer to the section of the original act which it is intended to amend, and this will be a sufficient compliance with section 30 of article 6 of the Constitution. (p. 584).

5. Same Where Court Can Unmistakably Perceive Object of Bill

it May so Construe it as to Effectuate Legislative Intent.

Where the language of a bill enacted into law is ambiguous, obscure, doubtful and uncertain in its meaning, purpose and effect, a court ordinarily cannot supply words, phrases or clauses to remove the defects or supply the omissions to as, certain the legislative intent; yet where the act is in substance complete as it stands, and the court can readily and unmistakably perceive the object and pupose to be effected, this rule does not apply to forbid the interpretation or construction, that will effectuate the legislative intendment. (p. 585.)

6. Same Title of Bill to Amend City Charter Need not Show

Intent to Annul Charter Rights of Towns Located in Territory to be Annexed.

Where the title of a bill to amend the charter of a city, when read in connection with the section to be amended, discloses the object and purpose of the bill to be the annexation to the city of territory clearly defined by the bill, and within which are several towns incorporated pursuant to the provisions of chapter 47 of the Code, the title need not necessarily disclose an intention or design to effect the annulment of the charter rights, powers and privileges of such incorporated towns; that being the inevitable result and ultimate consequence of the annexation. (p. 589).

7. Same Act Providing for Extension of City's Boundaries to

Include Outlying Towns Repeals Charters of Such Towns and Does Not Amend Them.

An act amending the charter of a city by providing for an extension of its boundaries, the inevitable effect of which, if approved by the voters, is to bring within its limits incorporated towns lying within the territory annexed, is in effect a repeal of the charters of such outlying towns, not an amendment thereof, and therefore not in conflict with section 39 of article 6 of the Constitution. (p. 589).

8. Municipal Corporations Substantial Compliance With Act

Directing Special Election on Question of Extending Boundary is Sufficient.

Where an act of the legislature directs that a special election be held to determine the question of the extension of municipal boundaries, and provides the general form of the resolution and notice to be given, a substantial compliance therewith is sufficient if it gives adequate notice of the time and places of voting and sufficiently designates the voters authorized to participate. (p. 590).

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ohio County. v Bill for injunction by T. E. Hood and others, taxpayers, in behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against the City of Wheeling and its Mayor and Members of the City Council. From a decree dissolving an injunction plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

J. H. Brennan and John P. Arhenz, for appellants.

M. J. Cidlinan and J.J.P. O'Brien, for appellees.

Lynch, Judge:

The charter of the City of Wheeling, granted by the General Assembly of Virginia in the year 1836 and afterwards amended by that body and by the Legislature of this state from time to time, and finally at the regular 1919 session, provided in the amendment adopted that year for an extension of the territorial boundaries of the city, subject, however, to the approval of the electors duly qualified to vote and voting at the election thereby authorized to be held and conducted within the time and in the manner required by such charter. If and when so approved, the areal boundaries of the city were to be, and as approved by the electors at the election so provided for, held and conducted for the purpose, were, enlarged so as to include territory other than and additional to that theretofore included within the city limits. The boundaries of the enlarged area the amendment definitely prescribed by geometrical courses and measurements, within the calls of which were Warwood, Fulton, Leatherwood, Woodsdale, Edgewood, Pleasant Valley, Elm Grove and Patterson, all of which were towns incorporated by the circuit court of Ohio County pursuant to the provisions of chapter 47 of the Code. Plaintiffs, who sue on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, reside, are taxable and own taxable property within the newly incorporated boundary and within some of the towns therein included. Defendants are the City of Wheeling, its mayor and members of the city council.

In their original bill plaintiffs upon the facts alleged by them therein sought but failed to obtain from the circuit court of Ohio County, or the judges thereof sitting together in vacation, an injunction to prohibit defendants from holding and ascertaining the result of the election later held and conducted to determine the will of the voters respecting the incorporation of the proposed new territory within the corporate boundaries of the city. Afterwards plaintiffs amended their bill and therein alleged the same and other supplemental facts and circumstances disclosed by the changed conditions due to the election held in the interim and at which the voters assented to the enlargement of the corporate area of the city; and in addition to the relief asked in the first instance, so far as available in the second, again sought and failed to obtain a decree to enjoin defendants from making further preparation for perfecting the annexation, and assuming official, management and control of the included territory and the incorporated towns therein located, and appropriating to the use of the city their treasuries and other property owned by them; and from admitting Charles II. Dewier and Arthur C. Stifel, elected to represent such new territory, to membership in the city council; and in general from doing or performing any other act or acts to cause to cease the right and power of the officers and agents of these towns to exercise the duties conferred upon them by chapter 47; and from levying, collecting and appropriating to the use and benefit of the city taxes assessed against the persons and property of the taxpayers residing within the territory so annexed to the city; and from incurring and paying any indebtedness or liabilities in anywise related to the matters alleged in either bill, other than those already in good faith contracted and now due and payable by defendants, and all other acts of every kind and character done pursuant to the provisions of the amended charter. The injunction so prayed for and refused a member of this court subsequently awarded, and it the circuit court later dissolved; hence this appeal.

Of the two questions raised for the purpose of impeaching the validity or regularity of the passage of the bill amending the charter, one relates to its title, the other to the constitutional requirement for three successive readings thereof in the House of Delegates. Mr. Weiss of Ohio County, the patron of the bill, known in the journal of that body as House Bill No. 152, introduced it in the House, of which he was a member, wherein it was read by its title, referred to and amended by the Committee on Counties, Districts and Municipal Corporations, and by it reported to the House with the recommendation that it do pass, wherein it was read as so required and ordered to its second reading. While pending on the second reading the author moved, and the House concurred in the motion, to substitute in lieu of the bill then pending what plaintiffs argue is an entirely new bill, having a different title and dissimilar provisions, thereby rendering the latter so obnoxious to the purposes of the former as to constitute it a new and distinct bill, one which cannot avail itself of the reading theretofore had of House Bill No. 152, but which must itself conform to the constitutional requirement for three successive readings.

The title...