Town of Narrows v. Giles County, Record No. 2932.

• Decision Date: 19 November 1945
• Docket Number: Record No. 2932.
• Citation: 184 Va. 628
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: TOWN OF NARROWS v. GILES COUNTY AND OTHERS.

Page 628

184 Va. 628

TOWN OF NARROWS v. GILES COUNTY AND OTHERS.

Record No. 2932.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

November 19, 1945.

Present, All the Justices.

1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Appeal and Error — Weight to Be Given Judgment of Trial Court. — In annexation cases, if there is credible evidence to support the judgment of the court it must be sustained, but the appellate court may not disregard any of the evidence or inferences which may be properly drawn therefrom, but will consider all of the evidence in the record. A presumption of correctness attends the decision of the lower court on questions of fact, but if the decision is not supported by the evidence it should not stand.

2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Absence of Compensating Benefits to Property Owner. — The absence of compensating benefits to one who finds his property within a territory proposed to be annexed to a town is no valid reaon for excluding his property.

3. TAXATION — Power — Not Dependent on Benefit to Property. — The right to tax does not depend on the presence or absence of benefit to the property.

4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Province of Court. — The court is called upon by the statute providing for annexation to express no opinion as to its wisdom as a matter of public policy. It has only to determine upon the evidence adduced the rights of the opposing parties in the particular case before it; whether upon the facts and circumstances established by the evidence the city is entitled to any extension at all, and if any, how much, and the terms and conditions upon which such extension shall be granted.

5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Wisdom and Policy of Statute Not for Court. — If the evidence clearly shows the necessity and expediency for annexation, the court is bound to annex the proposed territory. The wisdom and policy of the statute permitting the annexation are not for the court.

6. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — Enlargement of Corporate Bounds — Exclusion of Portion of Land — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an annexation proceeding, the trial court excluded part of the property of a railway company, in which was located a power plant, but did annex the remainder of the railway company's property lying immediately west of the power plant. There was evidence that the property of the railway company was not only needed in order to make a compact body of land, but was also needed for public municipal industrial development.

Held: That the portion of the order of the trial court excluding the property of the railway company was not supported by the evidence, and that the judgment of the trial court should be modified so as to include it.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Giles county. Hon. A. C. Buchanan, Earl L. Abbott and Walter H. Robertson, judges presiding.

The opinion states the case.

J. Livingstone Dillow and W. B. Snidow, for the appellant.

Walter C. Plunkett, M. P. Farrier and Leigh D. Williams, for the appellees.

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

The town of Narrows, in compliance with the terms of sec. 2956 of the Code of 1942 (Michie), served notice upon the Board of Supervisors of Giles county and Chester J. Stafford, attorney for the Commonwealth for Giles county, that it would move the circuit court to enter an order for the annexation to the town of certain contiguous territory. The town, by its council, had theretofore adopted an ordinance in which was incorporated a description of the territory proposed to be annexed. The territory desired to be annexed included several subdivisions, which had previously been platted and maps of them duly recorded in the clerk's office of Giles county. A number of lots had been sold to purchasers. The territory contains 390 acres and lies on the north side of New River, adjacent to the present town of Narrows, and is connected therewith by a State highway bridge.

The Virginian Railway Company intervened in these proceedings, asked to be made a party defendant and to be allowed to make defense. Many of the residents of the territory proposed to be annexed also filed a petition and answer, requesting that they be allowed to intervene and make defense to the proposed annexation. C. J. French and Ellene Givens, owners of land within this territory also requested that they be allowed to intervene and make defense to the proceedings.

Upon a hearing, the court entered an order in the proceedings by which a major part of the territory was annexed. The French and Givens lands, comprising some 47 acres, were excluded. The property of the Virginian Railway Company shown on a map known as "Virginian Railway's Exhibit No. 2", and designated as lot 14 and the eastern portion of lot 15, upon which the power plant is located, together with a strip of land adjoining lot 14 on the east, lying between the Virginian right-of-way and the river, was also excluded. However, the court did annex the western portion of lot 15 and all of lot 16, belonging to the Virginian Railway Company, and lying immediately west of the power plant.

The county of Giles, through its board of supervisors, not only failed to interpose any objection to the annexation of the said territory, but acquiesced therein.

The town of Narrows, in the prosecution of this appeal, makes no objection to the order of annexation, in so far as it relates to the exclusion of the French and Givens lands. It does object to the exclusion of the land of the railway company upon which the power house is located and the land immediately east thereof, and its exclusion is the sole subject of the present review.

Several maps and a number of photographs were introduced at the trial of the case. These maps clearly show the property sought to be annexed, and the photographs are also helpful in giving this court a better view of the situation.

The property sought to be annexed has been referred to as North Narrows. The evidence disclosed that there were at the time more than 550 people living in the territory, and there were 137 homes and 11 business houses, exclusive of the properties of the Virginian Railway Company. The evidence further disclosed that the general welfare of both the old town of Narrows and the territory proposed to be annexed would be greatly promoted by the annexation, and that a majority of the residents of the territory sought to be annexed desired the annexation. There were witnesses who testified in opposition to the annexation.

It was shown by the evidence that the conditions brought about by the war prevented the construction of more houses. In December, 1939, the American Celanese Corporation erected an establishment at the cost of more than twenty million dollars just two and one-half miles east of this territory. That enterprise, at the time of the trial, employed 3,300 people, and the testimony disclosed that in the immediate future the number of employees would be doubled. The territory desired to be annexed is the nearest available location for homes for those who are employed by that industry.

It is undisputed that there is a community of interest between the people in the old town of Narrows and in the area proposed to be annexed. Mr. R. Stuart Royer, a consulting engineer, had made a study of the situation and testified that the area embraced in the ordinance is compact, and that all of the land contained therein was necessary for the proper development and spread of the population in that community. He also testified that it was necessary and expedient that all of the territory embraced in the ordinance be annexed.

The Virginian Railway Company introduced evidence to the effect that its property sought to be annexed was valued at more than one million dollars. This property consists of a power plant and certain unimproved land recently purchased.

The court, in its opinion sustaining its order of annexation, and excluding a portion of the property of the Virginian Railway, had this to say:

"We are convinced by the evidence, without undertaking to review it in detail, that it is desirable and expedient to annex some, but not all, of the area proposed to be annexed. There is, beyond question, some territory in the present town not built upon, and which could be built upon. But the trend of growth has been and is, and apparently in the future will be, to the north side of the river. There is an urban community there now, with 137 homes and 11 business houses and some 500 people. There is such community of interest between this area and the towl that it is generally spoken of as North Narrows. Its growth and development have been largely influenced by the building and operation of the Celanese plant, which now employs some 3,300 people, and which expects in the near future to double its size and to employ more than 6,000 people. Tracts have been subdivided within the area proposed to be annexed, and there could be little doubt that new buildings will soon be erected in this area. As the evidence shows, it needs now, and will in the near future need even more, some municipal regulations, in order that it may have proper water and sewerage systems, lights, fire and police protection, proper sanitary measures, streets and alleys, and some control of building and development. As the community grows it should be under sufficient control to protect the health and comfort of its residents, its appearance, and the investment of its property owners. It seems to be strongly indicated that unless this community is taken into the town of Narrows, it will be obliged in the near future to seek an independent municipal government, which would be unfortunate for both communities. A large number of residents of this area have testified, favoring annexation and giving convincing reasons for their views."

However, the court excluded from the area...