Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-02-18
Important Decision.


on Thursday reversed the decree OF the
Corporation Court of Bristol in the case
ofJohn McCrowell against the city OF
Bristol. The suit was one to perpetu-
ally enjoin aud restrain the city and Its
treasurer from collecting the amount OF
q certain local assessment levied by the
CITY upon McCrowell for the cost OF the
LAYING of a granolithic pavement ia
front of the property of the plaintiff on
Main street in the city of Bristol. The
opinion in the case is very long one,
having been carefully prepared by
Judge Richardson. Section "a of the
charter of the city of Bristol which
touches upon the streets OF the place;
goes on to say that the council shall
have power and authority to have the
sidewalks and cutters along any street
in said city for such a width as 1t may,
prescribe paved or otherwise improved
and altered at the proper expense and
cost of the owner of the lands or lois
along the fronts or side of which sucn
sidewalks or Improvements may eS,
tend. and TO levy and collect such local
assessments on these lots as may be
necessary to pay for said improve
ments, these assessments to be collect
ed in the same manner as other taxes
are>collected. :,
The resolution of the Bristol Council
provided that the city should grade
Main street from Virginia to Scran-
ton, and that the property-owners
should be required to lay or pay for
granolithic pavement on the same III
front of their respective properties, &c.
The Supreme Court in its decision
takes the ground that the clause OF the
9th section of the charter Of Bristol re.
ferred to is confined to sidewalks and
cutters and in ummistakable terms con-
fers upon the council the authority TO
prescribe the width of sidewalks and
cutters and to have such sidewalks
and cutters properly paved, repaired,
altered, or otherwise improved, at the
cost of the AUDITING owners, and to levy
and collect local assessments as pre-
scribed, &C.. but this clause, it asserts,
plainly limits and restricts levylng and
collecting local assessments, to paving
or otherwise improving sidewalks and
cutters.
The decision quotes and requotes
the language of the resolution and
ordinance of the council in regard
to this work, which say 'the property
owners to lay or pay for pavement
on Main street." &C., the term side
walk not being used. The opinion
says: II.
of the Council plainly requires the
AUDITING property if anybody,
to pay for granolithic pavement on
Main street, aud not sidewalk or gut
ter on that street, cannot for moment
he questioned. 1t is conceded
that the improvement for which the
pretended assessment i'll question was
made was of sidewalk on Main street,
in the city of Bristol; but it must be
borne in mind that the question is not
whether the said Council had authority
to pass 9 valid ordinance fer such an
Improvement and to levy and collect
local assessments to detray the ex-
penses thereof, but whether under the
ordinance in question the assessment Is
valid" Continuing, the opinion de-
clares that if this ordinance be valid
and binding the City Council could go
ahead and pave the entire width of the
street and assess the AUDITING owners
with the cost thereof, and it asserts that
no such power is conferred by the char
ter, either expressly or by necessary
implication. 49,
The decision concludes as follows: SIN
the printed notes Of arguments of
counsel the question was dis
cussed whether under the Constl-
tuition of Virginia the legislature
had the power to confer upon the
Council of the city of Bristol the authority TO
levy and collect local assessments, as provided
by the Oath section of its charter The same
question was carefully and at length consld-
cred though not decided, in the very recent
case of the city OF Norfolk VS.. Chamborlalne.
not vet reported. As in that case so here IT II
not absolutely necessary to a proper decislon
of the case that that question be decided.
= 1t is not therefore, to be under
stood that this court in any respect reccdcS
from the constitutional view of the subject cX-
pressed in the city of Norfolk VS.. Chamber
lainc. supra.
For the reasons above stated we are clear
" of opinion that the assessment in ques-
ton was levied without authority and is void,
and that the decree of the court below dis
solving the injunction and dismssing the
plaintiffs bill was erroneous and must be re-
versed and annulled and decree entered
here perpctually enjoining the said city OF
Bristol, j. L. c. Smith. Treasurer Of said city,
and all others from proceeding in any way to
collect said assessment