Town of Falls Ch. v. Co. Bd. of Arlington

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Hudgins, J.
• Citation: Town of Falls Ch. v. Co. Bd. of Arlington, 166 Va. 192, 184 S.E. 459 (1936)
• Decision Date: 12 March 1936
• Parties: THE TOWN OF FALLS CHURCH, AND OTHERS v. THE COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, AND OTHERS.

Page 192

166 Va. 192

THE TOWN OF FALLS CHURCH, AND OTHERS v. THE COUNTY BOARD OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, AND OTHERS.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

March 12, 1936.

Present, Holt, Hudgins, Gregory, Browning and Eggleston, JJ.

1. STATUTES — Amendment — Municipal Corporations — Contraction of Corporate Limits — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding instituted under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to exclude that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly within Arlington county from the corporate limits of the town, plaintiffs in error contended that the statute violated section 52 of the Constitution of 1902, providing, in part, that no law should be amended with reference to its title but should be reenacted and published at length, on the ground that section 2971(1) amended sections 2969, 2970 and 2971 of the Code of 1930, dealing with the question of the contraction of the corporate limits of municipalities when the proceedings are instituted by the corporate authorities.

Held: That not a single provision in sections 2969, 2970 and 2971 was enlarged or diminished by section 2971(1), which gives to a majority of the citizens residing in the area proposed to be eliminated from the corporate limits of a town, the right to institute proceedings for that purpose. As this phase of the subject was not covered by the existing law, there was no necessity to revive or amend any statute by title or otherwise.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Elections — Municipal Corporations — Contraction of Corporate Limits — Statutory Provision Requiring Petition to Be Signed by Majority of Voters Is Not Election — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to have that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly within Arlington county excluded from the corporate limits of the town, it was contended that the provisions of the statute invoking the jurisdiction of the court constituted an election, in violation of sections 27, 28, and 63(11) of the Constitution of 1902.

Held: That the provision of section 2971(1), requiring that the petition be signed by a majority of the qualified voters residing in the area to be excluded is not an election by the people in the sense that the term is used in the Constitution.

3. STATUTES — Special and Local Laws — Municipal Corporations — Contraction of Corporate Limits — Statute Applying to All Towns Similarly Situated Is Not Local Law — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to have that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly within Arlington county excluded from the corporate limits of the town, it was contended that the statute, providing for the contraction of the corporate limits of towns lying partially in one county and partially in another, contravened sections 63, 64, 65, and 126, of the Constitution of 1902, regarding special, local and private legislation.

Held: That the act is general and applies to all towns within the Commonwealth similarly situated.

4. STATUTES — Classification — Discretion of Legislature — The legislature exercises a wide discretion in the determination of classifications as a basis for legislative enactments.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Contraction of Corporation Limits — Appeal and Error — Limitation of Sixty Days in Which to Apply for Writ of Error Is Valid — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding instituted under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to have that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly in Arlington county excluded from the corporate limits of the town, plaintiffs in error contended that the statute contravened section 52 of the Constitution, because amendatory of sections 6336 and 6337 of the Code of 1930, in that it limits the time to sixty days in which a party may apply to the Supreme Court of Appeals for a writ of error and supersedeas.

Held: That this provision of the act is valid. The legislature had the power to deny to litigants any review by the Supreme Court of Appeals.

6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Separation of Departments — Municipal Corporations — Contraction of Corporate Limits — Statute Not Invalid as Delegating Legislative Functions to Judiciary — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to have that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly in Arlington county excluded from the corporate limits of the town, plaintiffs in error contended that the statute contravened section 39 of the Constitution of 1902 in that it delegates to the courts functions distinctively legislative or executive.

Held: That section 2971(1), which requires the court to determine before the prayer of the petition is granted that it will be to the interest of the majority of the people residing in the community proposed to be stricken off, and that the general good of the community will not be materially affected, is not unconstitutional.

7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Impairment of Obligation of Contract — Municipal Corporations — Statute Providing for Contraction of Corporate Limits — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to have that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly in Arlington county excluded from the corporate limits of the town, plaintiffs in error contended that the statute, providing that a majority of the qualified voters residing in the area to be affected might file a petition in court to have part of a town, lying partially in one county and partially in another, excluded from the corporate limits, violated article I, section 10 of the Constitutional of the United States, prohibiting the impairment of the obligation of contracts.

Held: That the granting of a charter by a State to a political subdivision does not create a contractual relation between the municipality and the State.

8. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — mpairment of Obligation of Contract — Legislation Regulating or Affecting Municipal Corporation Does Not Amount to Contract. — Since the municipal corporation is merely a governmental agency, legislation regulating or affecting such a corporation does not amount to a contract with the corporation, the obligation of which cannot be impaired by modifying or repealing the legislation in question without violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the impairment of the obligation of contracts.

9. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Due Process — Municipal Corporations — Contraction of Corporate Limits — Notice to Town — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a proceeding under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930, to have that part of the town of Falls Church lying wholly within Arlington county excluded from the corporate limits of the town, it was contended that the statute violated the due process clauses of both the United States and Virginia Constitutions, because not expressly stating that the town may appear in its own name. The statute required posting and publication of notice and service on the mayor and members of the board of supervisors of the county affected.

Held: That the statute does not violate the due process clauses of either the State or Federal Constitution. It is the mayor and board of supervisors as representatives of the town and county, not as citizens, who must be summoned to appear.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Arlington county granting a petition for the contraction of the corporate limits of a town under section 2971(1) of the Code of 1930.

The opinion states the case.

John S. Barbour, for the plaintiffs in error.

Thomas W. Phillips and Lawrence W. Douglas, for the defendants in error.

HUDGINS, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Ninety-one of the one hundred and twenty-three qualified voters, residing in that part of the town of Falls Church lying in Arlington county, filed a petition in the circuit court of the county, praying that that part of the town lying wholly within Arlington county be excluded from the corporate limits of the town. The county board of Arlington, and the mayor of the town of Falls Church were duly summoned to answer the petition. The former appeared and joined in the prayer. The latter appeared and filed a demurrer and answer to the petition. The town of Falls Church, in its own name, the board of school trustees of the town of Falls church, and twenty-four citizens residing in that part of the town lying in Fairfax county, intervened as parties to the proceedings. After a full hearing the trial court entered an order granting the prayer of the petition, and from that order, this writ of error was allowed to the mayor, the town of Falls Church, and other intervenors.

The first assignment of error is to the action of the court in overruling the demurrer. This assignment raises the question of the constitutionality of chapter 216, p. 310, of the act approved March 16, 1920, Michie's Code, section 2971(1), under which the proceedings were instituted and conducted. The reasons assigned for the unconstitutionality of the act are as follows: (1) The enactment of the statute contravenes section 52 of the Virginia Constitution; (2) The provisions of the act invoking the jurisdiction of the court constitute an election, which is violative of sections 27, 28, and 63(11), of the Constitution, prescribing the method of holding elections by the people; (3) The act contravenes sections 63, 64, 65, and 126, of the Constitution regarding special, local and private legislation; (4) The provisions of the act delegate to the judiciary legislative functions which contravene section 39 of the Virginia Constitution; and (5) that it violates both section 11 of the Virginia Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Taking up these rather formidable contentions, in the order named, we turn to section 52 of the Virginia Constitution, which reads; "No law shall...