TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

City of Suffolk v. County of Nansemond

City of Suffolk v. Cnty. of Nansemond, 181 S.E.2d 621 (Va. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Virginia · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 14, 1971
Docket
No. Record No. 7387
Citations
181 S.E.2d 621212 Va. 11971 Va. LEXIS 273

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

The City of Suffolk brought this annexation proceeding pursuant *2 to an ordinance that described the property proposed to be annexed by referring to monuments but without bearings and distances:

“Beginning at a point at the intersection of the present east corporate boundary of the City of Suffolk and the south right-of-way line of the Norfolk and Western Railway Company (formerly the Virginian); thence running in an easterly direction along the south right-of-way line of the said Norfolk and Western Railway Company, crossing the Norfolk, Franklin and Danville Railway (formerly the Atlantic and Danville) and the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (formerly the Atlantic Coast Line) to the intersection of said south right-of-way line and the extension (in a southeastern direction) of a line 400 feet northeast of and parallel with the center line of State Route 614 (Suburban Drive); * *

The annexation court, with one judge dissenting, sustained the motion of the County of Nansemond to dismiss the annexation petition on the ground that the City ordinance did not describe the “[mjetes and bounds” of the area sought to be annexed as required by Code § 15.1-1033. The City appeals from the order dismissing the petition.

We need not decide the usual and customary meaning of “metes and bounds” because we agree with Judge Whitley, who said in his dissenting opinion in this case:

“In my opinion the statute [Code § 15.1-1033] does not require a description in strict and literal engineers’ language but only sufficient definiteness to enable a non engineer to know where the location of the line is. The description in the ordinance refers to readily understandable monuments such as railroad rights of way, public roads, rivers and streams. After a careful reading thereof I am of the opinion that any surveyor, engineer or layman can walk the line and follow it on the ground with reasonable certainty.* * *"

Reversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1992: 119922026peak 1992 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Town of New Market v. Milrey, Inc.-FDI Partnership602 A.2d 201 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992)

Most recent

  1. Town of New Market v. Milrey, Inc.-FDI Partnership602 A.2d 201 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list