Town Of Leesburg v. Bank

Citation126 S.E. 196
Case DateNovember 05, 1925
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

126 S.E. 196

TOWN OF LEESBURG
v.
LOUDOUN NAT.
BANK.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUDOUN COUNTY
v.
SAME.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan.15, 1925.


Error to Circuit Court, Loudoun County.

Separate proceedings, by the Loudoun National Bank against the Town of Leesburg and against Loudoun County to correct tax assessments. Judgment for plaintiff in each case, and the Town and the Board of Supervisors of Loudoun County bring error. Both judgments reversed.

[126 S.E. 197]

Wilbur C. Hall, C. F. Harrison, and Cecil Connor, all of Leesburg, for plaintiffs in error.

E. E. Garrett, of Leesburg, and Fulton & Wicker, of Richmond, for defendant in error.

PRENTIS, J. These cases were argued together and with one exception to be hereinafter noted, the Questions raised in each are identical. They involve the validity of taxes imposed by the town and county upon the stockholders of the bank. The proceedings were under statutes, authorizing the correction of erroneous assessments and levies of local taxes. The taxes involved were for the years 1919 and 1921.

1. The first error assigned is that the court was clearly without jurisdiction to correct the assessment for the year 1919. This because that statute (Code, § 23S9) requires that the application for such redress must be made to the court within two years from the 1st day of September of the year in which the assessment is made, and this was not done.

The statement of this proposition is sufficient to show that the point is well taken. It does not present the cases where the limitation, if relied on, must be specially pleaded. The remedy, because it is based solely upon the statute, is also limited thereby. As is said in Commonwealth v. Deford, 137 Va. 551, 120 S. E. 284:

"The very right itself is accorded by the statute. As that statute is relied on, and the proceeding can be maintained only in accordance therewith, the limitation of time thereby prescribed is so incorporated in the remedy given as to make it an integral part of it, and hence makes it a condition precedent to the maintenance of the proceeding. It is a special limitation prescribed by the same statute which creates the right. The distinction between statutes of limitation which bar rights which have once accrued and limitations of time which are an integral part of the statute creating the right is everywhere recognized, and as to this it is only necessary to cite one other Virginia case, Dowell v. Cox, 108 Va. 400 [2 Va. App. 501], 62 S. E. 272, where it is held that the statutory requirement that an action for wrongful killing shall be brought within one year affects the right as well as the remedy, and can therefore be availed of by demurrer."

The court, then, had no jurisdiction to grant relief as to the taxes for the year 1919; and, this being jurisdictional, the question may be raised for the first time in this court.

It is urged for the bank that the notice of the purpose to apply for such correction was given within the two years. This we regard as entirely immaterial. The same question was presented to and considered by this court in Moore v. Henrico County, in which a writ of error was denied, and in Moore v. Scott,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • In re Chen, No. 03-10711-RGM.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 7 Septiembre 2006
    ...Clay Mfg. Co., [102 Va. 274, 46 S.E. 294 (1904)]; Dowell v. Cox, 108 Va. 460, 62 S.E. 272; Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat'l Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391, 135 S.E. 21. The declaration or the bill in such cases is demurrable not only wh......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 13 Noviembre 1930
    ...original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.' " See, also, Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S. E. 196, and Commonwealth v. Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S. E. 281. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grievous his wro......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 13 Noviembre 1930
    ...of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.'" See also Town of Leesburg Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196, and Commonwealth Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S.E. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grievous his wrong, circu......
  • Wilson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., No. LR-912.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 14 Febrero 1945
    ...raised, and the defendant insurance company cited a previous Virginia decision (Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196) holding that a statutory requirement that an application for redress from an erroneous assessment must be made to the court within two years ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • In re Chen, No. 03-10711-RGM.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fourth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 7 Septiembre 2006
    ...Clay Mfg. Co., [102 Va. 274, 46 S.E. 294 (1904)]; Dowell v. Cox, 108 Va. 460, 62 S.E. 272; Leesburg v. Loudoun Nat'l Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196; American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 145 Va. 391, 135 S.E. 21. The declaration or the bill in such cases is demurrable not only wh......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 13 Noviembre 1930
    ...original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.' " See, also, Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S. E. 196, and Commonwealth v. Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S. E. 281. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grievous his wro......
  • Putnam v. Ford
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 13 Noviembre 1930
    ...of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.'" See also Town of Leesburg Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196, and Commonwealth Deford Co., 137 Va. 551, 120 S.E. In the absence of some permissive statute, a taxpayer, however grievous his wrong, circu......
  • Wilson v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., No. LR-912.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 14 Febrero 1945
    ...raised, and the defendant insurance company cited a previous Virginia decision (Town of Leesburg v. Loudoun National Bank, 141 Va. 244, 126 S.E. 196) holding that a statutory requirement that an application for redress from an erroneous assessment must be made to the court within two years ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT