Town Of Narrows v. Bd. Of Sup'rs Of Giles County

• Decision Date: 18 November 1920
• Citation: 105 S.E. 82
• Parties: TOWN OF NARROWS. v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF GILES COUNTY et al.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

105 S.E. 82

TOWN OF NARROWS.

v.BOARD OF SUP'RS OF GILES COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 18, 1920.

Sims and Prentis, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Giles County.

Suit by the Town of Narrows against the Board of Supervisors of Giles County and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

W. B. Snidow, of Pearisburg, for appellant.

M. P. Farrier, of Pearisburg, for appellees.

BURKS, J. This suit was instituted in the circuit court of Giles county by the town of Narrows, for the purpose of having an accounting and a decree directing the treasurer of the county to pay to the complainant a certain portion of the road taxes collected by him of the inhabitants of the town for certain years, and to enjoin him from paying out the amounts so collected by him to others, until the rights of the complainant had been settled and determined. There was a demurrer and answer by the defendants, but no evidence was offered. At the hearing the bill was dismissed, and from the decree dismissing the bill this appeal was taken.

The bill was dismissed because the judge of the trial court was of opinion that section 27 of the act of March 27, 1914, entitled "An act to provide a new charter for the town of Narrows, " etc. (Acts 1914, p. 573), was in violation of section 168 of the Constitution, in that it undertakes indirectly to exempt the citizens of the town of Narrows from the payment of county road taxes. Other constitutional objections were also raised to the charter of said town, which we are asked to consider in the event we do not concur in the opinion of the trial court that the charter violates section 168 of the Constitution.

Section 27 of the charter referred to is as follows:

"The said town of Narrows shall have the right to collect three-fourths (3/4) of all the road tax levied by the county on the inhabitants of Narrows. Said amount shall be expended within the limits of the corporation on the streets and roads therein under the direction and supervision of said council."

The town of Narrows is situated in Giles county, and no other provision of the charter relates to road taxes levied by Giles county, or any magisterial district thereof, nor is the town required to keep its streets in order free of expense to the county or the district in which the town is located. The county of Giles has a special road law of its own. Acts 1908, p. 611. Under this law each magisterial district of the county is made a separate road district, and a separate taxing district for road purposes. Section 12 of that act, as amended, is as follows:

"For the purpose of opening, changing, and working and keeping in repair, the roads of Giles county and for the purpose of building or repairing the bridges and footways in said county, it shall be the duty of the board of supervisors of said county to levy an annual tax, not exceeding fifty cents on the one hundred dollars worth of all taxable property in said county, both real and personal. The amount from each magisterial district shall be kept separate, and shall be known as the district road fund, twenty per centum of which to be annually expended in macadamizing and making other permanent improvements thereon in such a manner and at such points as the commission for the several districts may think fit." Acts 1916, p. 206.

There does not appear to be any separate county road tax, but the road taxes in the several districts are kept separate, and provision is made as to the payment of the expenses of building and maintaining roads which lie in two or more districts. The town of Narrows lies in and constitutes a part of the Pearisburg magisterial district, and the inhabitants of the town of Narrows are subject to the same road taxes as persons living in said district, but outside of the corporate limits of the town. Neither the road law of the county, the charter of the town, nor any other statute, exempts the inhabitants of the town or the property therein from the same rate of taxation as imposed on persons and property within the district and outside of the corporate limits, nor is such exemption claimed by the inhabitants of the town themselves or their property. What is done by the charter is an appropriation to the streets and roads of the town of three-fourths of the road taxes collected in the town, and the only question is whether the Legislature had the power to make such an appropriation. There is no exemption from the tax. This has to be paid at all events. But after it has been paid and is in the hands of the treasurer, has the Legislature the power to direct its appropriation? We know of no inhibition on this power. Legislation of this character is not infrequent. In section 12 of the road law, above quoted, we find an instance of it. It is there provided that 20 per cent. of the road tax of the district shall be expended in macadamizing and making other permanent improvements on the roads in the dis-trict. So long as the taxes raised in a district are to be expended in the district, it is clearly within the province of the Legislature to say when and how it shall be expended. The fact that the town is not required by its charter to keep its streets in order, and that the residue of the district is not exempted from any expenditure on said streets, is immaterial in this case, as the other road funds of the district are wholly under the control and direction of the board of road commissioners of the district, under the special road law for the county, and not one cent thereof can he expended on such streets without the approval and direction of said board. The three-fourths of the road tax set apart to the town by its charter is required to be expended on its streets and roads, and, if this is not sufficient for the purpose, it has no right to require the board of road commissioners for the district to pay any more as they are vested with discretion as to how the funds under their control are to be expended, and this discretion is not subject to control. Section 26 of the charter confers upon the town a further power of taxation for the purpose of "working and keeping of its streets, roads and bridges" in repair except county bridges. To this extent, but to this extent only, the town is constituted a separate district for road purposes. That is to say the town may tax its inhabitants for improvements of its streets, in addition to the three-fourths of district road taxes, but cannot levy an additional road tax for any other purpose.

The inhabitants of the town of Narrows are subject to all the county and district road taxes to which inhabitants of the county or district outside of the town are subject, and there is no doubt about the power of the Legislature to create separate road districts of the magisterial districts of the county for local purposes. Watkins v. Barrow, 121 Va. 236, 92 S. E. 908. The provisions of section 27 of the charter do not go as far as the Legislature would lawfully have gone if it had made a separate road district of the town. The greater power of course includes the less. It is no objection to the charter that the town is not given the power to levy taxes to maintain county bridges that are or may be within the town. This is not a purely local affair, and the prohibition to levy taxes for county purposes does not affect the validity of the charter.

Nor, in our opinion, is it material that there may be streets or roads in the town which are not county roads, and upon which the town authorities might use some or all of the tax thus assigned to them. The same thing would have been true in greater degree if the Legislature had gone the whole length of making a separate road district of the town. In the latter event the county would have been deprived of any and all road taxes collected from the inhabitants of the town, and yet would have had no power or control over the application of such road taxes as might be collected by the municipal authorities.

We are of opinion, therefore, that section 27 of the charter of the town of Narrows is not in conflict with section 168 of the Constitution on the subject of uniform taxation. The section does not create any exemption from road taxation by either the county or the district, but does make an appropriation of part of the road taxes collected within the town, and this is within the legislative power.

Another objection made to the charter of the town is that the new charter created by the act of March 27, 1914, violates section 52 of the Constitution of the state, declaring that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title." The original charter of the town was granted by an act of assembly approved March 14, 1904, entitled, "An act to provide a charter for the town of Narrows, in Giles county, Virginia." Acts 1904, p. 256. This charter was amended by an act approved March 13, 1908, entitled, "An act to amend and re-enact an act approved March 14, 1904, entitled an act to provide a charter for the town of Narrows, in Giles county, Virginia." Acts 1908, p. 543. Next came the act of March 27, 1914, now complained of, entitled, "An act to provide a new charter for the town of Narrows, Virginia, and to repeal all other acts or parts of acts in conflict therewith." Acts 1914, p. 573. This last act makes no reference in its title to the preceding acts except by the use of the word "new, " but the use of that word indicates that there was a previous charter, and an examination of the act and a comparison of its provisions with those of the previous charter, as amended, discloses the fact that the act of 1914 is, in substance and effect, an amendment of the previous charter. It contains nothing that might not have been embraced in an act, simply amending the former charter under a title similar to the amendment of 1908. It may be treated, therefore, as if enacted under a title similar to the 1908 amendment. It would seem...