West Brothers Brick Co. v. Alexandria

• Citation: 169 Va. 271
• Parties: WEST BROTHERS BRICK COMPANY, INC. v. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA.
• Decision Date: 23 September 1937
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

Page 271

169 Va. 271

WEST BROTHERS BRICK COMPANY, INC. v. THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 23, 1937.

Present, All the Justices.

1. JUDICIAL NOTICE — Public and Social Developments. — Courts take cognizance of public and social developments and balance them as best they can against private rights.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Conflict with Constitution. — Where the police power conflicts with the Constitution, the latter is supreme, but the courts will not restrain the exercise of such power except where the conflict is clear and plain.

3. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Proper Use of Police Power. — Zoning ordinances are a proper use of the police power and are valid in Virginia so long as they are not arbitrary and unreasonable.

4. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Sustained When Debatable. — Zoning ordinances must be sustained if their reasonableness is debatable.

5. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Public Health, Safety and General Welfare. — The legislature may, in the exercise of the police power, restrict personal and property rights in the interest of public health, public safety, and for the promotion of the general welfare.

6. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Promotion of Public Convenience or General Prosperity. — The police power embraces regulations designed to promote the public convenience or the general prosperity, as well as regulations designed to promote the public health, the public morals or the public safety.

7. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Aesthetic Considerations. — Aesthetic considerations alone are not enough to make a zoning ordinance a proper exercise of the police power, but they should be considered.

8. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Discretion of City Council. — The judgment of a city council in passing a zoning ordinance should not be interfered with unless there has been a plain abuse of its wide discretion.

9. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Lines Necessarily Arbitrary. — The boundary line of a zoning district must be fixed in some locality and must always be more or less arbitrary, because the property on one side of a line cannot, in the very nature of things, be very different from the property on the other side of the line.

10. ZONING ORDINANCES — Doctrine of Non-Conforming Uses — Property Bought for Future Use — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainant, a brick and tile company, bought a tract of clay land, part of which was within the city limits and all of which was later included within the city by the extension of the limits. The city, after public hearings, passed a zoning ordinance classifying complainant's tract as residential. Complainant's petition for a re-zoning was refused, and suit was thereupon instituted to enjoin the city from interfering with complainant in mining and removing the clay. Complainant contended that under the doctrine of non-conforming uses it desired but to continue a use already in effect.

Held: That, as the clay bed had never been used but was bought for future use, the doctrine of non-conforming uses had no application.

11. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Power to Regulate Use Does Not Confer Power to Prohibit — Regulations Required to Be Reasonable. — The power to regulate the uses of property does not confer the power to utterly prohibit its use, and the regulations themselves must be within reasonable limits.

12. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Taking of Property under Guise of Regulation — Reasonable Regulation Affecting Use or Value of Property. — Under the guise of regulation property cannot be taken, but no demand for compensation can be sustained because of some reasonable regulation which may affect its use or even its value.

13. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Business Lawful in Itself May Be Forbidden. — The State may regulate the use of property to the point of forbidding thereon certain businesses in themselves lawful.

14. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Police Power — Diminution of Value of Land. — Regulations by the State of the use of property, among their incidental effects, in terms of money may diminish the value of land so regulated. For such injuries the law affords no remedy. It is damnum absque injuria.

15. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Prohibiting Use of Land for Certain Purposes — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainant, a brick and tile company, bought a tract of clay land, part of which was within the city limits and all of which was later included within the city by the extension of the limits. The city, after public hearings, passed a zoning ordinance classifying complainant's tract as residential. Complainant's petition for a re-zoning was refused, and suit was thereupon instituted to enjoin the city from interfering with complainant in mining and removing the clay. Complainant contended that the ordinance, when construed to prohibit the use of the land as a clay pit, violated sections 3091(1) to 3091(26) of the Code of 1936, empowering city councils to zone the municipal area and regulate the use of land within such zones.

Held: That the contention was without merit.

16. ZONING ORDINANCES — Sections 3091(1) to 3091(26) of the Code of 1936 — Expression of Object in Title — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainant, a brick and tile company, bought a tract of clay land, part of which was within the city limits and all of which was later included within the city by the extension of the limits. The city, after public hearings, passed a zoning ordinance classifying complainant's tract as residential. Complainant's petition for a re-zoning was refused, and suit was thereupon instituted to enjoin the city from interfering with complainant in mining and removing the clay. Complainant contended that sections 3091(1) to 3091(26) of the Code of 1936 were invalid because the title of the act did not express its purpose, or did not express a purpose to prohibit a lawful use of the land.

Held: That this contention was without merit, as no general use of the land was prohibited, though certain particular uses were prohibited.

17. STATUTES — Title — Expression of Object in Title — Constitutional Provision to Be Liberally Construed. — Section 52 of the Constitution of 1902, requiring that no law shall embrace more than one object which shall be expressed in its title, is to be liberally construed.

18. STATUTES — Title — Expression of Object in Title — Title Not Misleading and Act Germane Thereto. — Under section 52 of the Constitution of 1902, requiring that no law shall embrace more than one object which shall be expressed in its title, it is sufficient if the title of the statute in question is not misleading and if those things are done which are germane to it.

19. STATUTES — Title — Expression of Object in Title — Intention of Constitutional Provision. — Section 52 of the Constitution of 1902, requiring that no law shall embrace more than one object which shall be expressed in its title, was intended to prevent the insertion of rights or reservations which cannot bear the light of public scrutiny and which, if uncovered, would not be tolerated. Where this is done that provision should be enforced to the letter.

20. ZONING ORDINANCES — Damaging Property without Compensation — Damage Incidental to Lawful Exercise of Police Power — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainant, a brick and tile company, bought a tract of clay land, part of which was within the city limits and all of which was later included within the city by the extension of the limits. The city, after public hearings, passed a zoning ordinance classifying complainant's tract as residential. Complainant's petition for a re-zoning was refused, and suit was thereupon instituted to enjoin the city from interfering with complainant in mining and removing the clay. Complainant contended that its property had been both damaged and taken without just compensation contrary to the provisions of sections 6, 11 and 58 of the Constitution of 1902.

Held: That the contention was without merit, as the property had not been taken, and although it had been damaged, such damage was incidental to a lawful exercise of police power and was not the damage contemplated by the protective provisions of the Constitution invoked.

21. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Power of Municipalities to Enact under Police Power. — Municipalities have the right under their police power to enact zoning ordinances.

22. STATUTES — Validity — Sustained When Validity Is Debatable. — Courts uphold acts of the legislature whenever their constitutionality is debatable; presumptions are in their favor.

23. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Location of Lines in Some Degree Arbitrary. — The fact that the location of lines may be in some degree arbitrary will not defeat a zoning ordinance.

24. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Presumption of Validity. — Zoning ordinances must not be wholly unreasonable, but they are presumed to be valid and to have been promulgated by those familiar with local conditions.

25. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Consideration of Financial Losses and Benefits. — In considering the validity of zoning ordinances, constitutional rights are not to be measured in money, but this is a consideration to be remembered, and great financial losses should not be inflicted where benefits to others are negligible.

26. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Public Welfare and Convenience Control. — Public welfare and convenience control in considering the validity of zoning ordinances, and are in themselves terms constantly adjusted to meet new conditions.

27. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Burden of Proof of Invalidity. — Upon those who would set aside a zoning ordinance for invalidity rests a heavy burden of proof.

28. ZONING ORDINANCES — Validity — Burden of Proof of Necessity or Desirability — Case at Bar. — In the instant case complainant, a brick and tile company, bought a tract of...