Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-07-08
COURT DECISIONS.
DlGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
ViRCINlAM-P9LOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are of Interest to
Our People.

w. RAILWAY co. V. ALEXANDRIA,.
supreme Court OF Appeals OF Virginia.
June II. 1900.
THE COURT WILL. by MANpA-
MUS. UPON PETITION OF a
CITY. COMPELL a STREET CAR
COMPANY no CHANGE IT'S
RAILS AS REQUIRED BY ORDI-
NANCE. THE SAID CHANGE BE-
ING REASONABLE AND THE
RAILS AS LAID BEING a NUI-
SANCE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
THE STREET.
THE POWER GIVEN \ CITY TO
REGULATE AND CONTROL IT'S
STREETS Is y CONTINUING
POWER, TO BE EXERCISED AS
OFTEN AND WHENEVER THE
COUNCIL THINK PROPER. BUT
IN y REASONABLE MANNER.
Appellant with consent of the city of
Alexandria laid its rails over certain
streets in 1892. IN 1895 the city Coun-
ell passed certain ordinances requiring
the street railway company to take up
the rails ON certain part OF King
street ana lay III their stead II differ
ent class of rail. The company fail
ing to obey said ordinance the city
asked for mandamus to compel them
To do so, which WAS granted by the
lower court, and the company appeal
ed.
The petition sets forth that the ordi-
nance is u reasonable regulation of the
use of the street, which the city has
full power to make under section 80
of its charter, and under the general
law: that the paving OF King street
tad nt,J Il t&,.
citizens of Alexandria. and Il GrooVed
rail is necessary incident to the i'm
provement. King street being the prin-
ciplc business street Of the city. with
heavy wagon traffic upon it and
measuring only 81 feet from curb to
curb: that owing TO the narrowness of
the street traiilc is compelled TO follow
the tracks and rails OF the appellant
company. and therefore any railway
track on King street is to some cX-
tent an impeachment to its free use
and that for these reasons the rail used
should be such as to impede general
traffic in the least possible degree.
1t is further averrcd that the rail
now used upon King street is such as
tn prevent vehicles from turning out
of the railway track, except with great
strain to the wheels. axles ana running
gear and jolting In direct crossing
The form OF the rails and the nature
and extent OF the Inconvenience they
occasion Is set out with much detail
In the petition, and for the reason just
stated the petition AYERS that the rails
as at present laid are nuisance and
an obstruction to the ordinary use of
the street.
The court says:
The real issue to be considered and
decided is this: Was the ordinance of
the city reasonable one, regard be
ing had TO all the circumstances of the
case. or did the city council in passing
the ordinance act capriciously and ar
bitrarily?
It's charter and the general law con-
fer upon the city of Alexandria ann
pie power TO control and regulate the
laying out, repair and use of its
streets. "To do So" said the court
in Roanoke Gas Company V. the City
of Roanoke. SS Va, $40, SIS Il power
essentially incident to the existence
and well-being of every municipal cor
poration, and powe's thus delegated
are trusts held for the public good. are
continuing and cannot he contracted
away. nor can the municipal authori-
ties bind themselves by contract not
to exercise them from time TO time as
the public good may require
and of the necessity and cxpediency
of the exercise of such power the city
council. and not the court is the
judge
Where legislative power is conferred
upon-it-- bXthe- Stale il -is-n acessarSL
that n degree OF freedom should be
allowed in its exercise: otherwise the
city would be so hampered in the gov
eminent of its people as would defeat
the very ends of it's incorporation.
Hence il is that the courts will never
Interfere with the free exercise of such
rights rs are left to the discretion of a
corporate authority unless such author
ity should go beyond the scope of pow
or delegated or unless the discretion
given should be abused by an arbitrary
exercise thereof and by a plain and
unwarranted violation of private
rights.
1t is not necessary to make further
citation Of authority to show that the
City Council was clothed with ample
power to control and regulate the
streets of the city; that this was Il
continuing power to be exercised as of
ten ard whenever the Council may
think proper. subject only to the limi-
tation that 1t must act in good faith:
that the regulation must be reasona BILE
and not imposed arbitrarily or capri
ciouSly, the presumption being in ia
vor of the propriety and validity OF
what the city has directed TO be done
Dillon on Nun. Corps, sec. 1927, says:
whether an ordinance be reasonable
and consistent with the law or not is
a question for the court and not the