V.

of Alexandria, and owning ground therein, having ALEXANDER no house on it, where the service (to compensate MAYOR, &c. which the tax or assessment has been or may be imposed) has been or may be performed before the last day of February, 1797; but for the collection of such taxes, the same means may be used which would have been lawful before the passage of this act."

Also the act of 13th of December, 1796,". Adding to the town of Alexandria certain lots contiguous thereto, and for other purposes therein mentioned," the preamble of which recites, that " Whereas several additions of lots contiguous to the town of Alexandria have been laid off by the proprietors of the land, in lots of half an acre each, extending to the north, to a range of lots upon the north side of a street called Montgomery; upon the south, to the line of the district of Columbia; upon the west, to a range of lots upon the west side of West street; and upon the east, to the river Potomac; that many of the lots in these additions have already been built upon, and many more will soon be improved; and whereas it has been represented to the general assembly that the inhabitants, residing on the said lots, are not subject to the regulations made and established for the orderly government of the town, and for the preservation of the health of the inhabitants, by the prevention and removal of nuisances, upon which their prosperity and well being do very much depend,"

Be it therefore enacted, that each and every lot or part of a lot within the limits aforesaid, on which at this time is built a dwelling-house of at least sixteen feet square, or equal thereto in size, with a brick or stone chimney, and that each and every lot within said limits which shall hereafter be built upon, shall be incorporated with the said town of Alexandria, and be considered as part thereof."

Also an act "Extending the jurisdiction of the mayor and commonalty of the town of Alexandria, and for other purposes," the preamble whereof recites, that "Whereas by an act of assembly passed in the year 1796, entitled, an act adding to the town of Alexandria certain lots contiguous thereto, and for other purposes therein mention

V.

MAYOR, &c.

ALEXANDER ed, it is enacted that certain improved lots, and all others as they become so improved, within the bounds in the said act mentioned, be added to, and made part of, the said town of Alexandria, thereby leaving out of the jurisdiction of the mayor and commonalty of the said town, the unimproved lots within the limits aforesaid, as long as they shall so remain unimproved; by which means the prosperity of the said town is in a great degree prevented,

SECT. 1. "Be it therefore enacted, That the unimproved lots within the limits aforesaid shall be and are hereby incorporated with and considered as a part of the said town of Alexandria, and subject to the same regulations as the other parts thereof.

SECT. 2. "The mayor and commonalty of the said town are hereby authorized and empowered, whenever they may deem it proper, to open, extend, regulate, pave and improve the streets of the said town; provided, however, that they shall make to every person or persons injured by the extension of any of the said streets, such compensation, out of the funds of the corporation, as to the said mayor and commonalty shall appear to be just."

The plaintiffs produced also the necessary by-laws and documents to show the regularity and amount of the assessment.

.

On the part of the defendant it was proved that he never was an inhabitant of the town of Alexandria that the property assessed was not within the original limits of the town, but lies within the limits described by the act Adding to the town of A exandria certain lots contiguous thereto, and for other purposes."

་་

It was not proved that the defendant had ever laid off any part of the property into lots of half an acre each, or in any other manner, or that he had ever built any dwelling-house thereon. But it was proved that always after the assessment the defendant had personal property within the town, on which

V.

the assessments could have been levied; (but it did ALEXANDER not appear that the personal property had been on MAYOR, &c. any of the lots assessed;) and that the serjeant of the town informed the mayor and common council, that he could make distress on the defendant's personal property in the town of Alexandria, for the

assessments.

The property assessed was part of a tract of land which the defendant holds in the neighbourhood of the town. The commissioner of the streets of the town had been directed by the mayor to make a plan of the town, and had applied to the defendant to know whether he did not wish to have the plan extended on his land which lay adjoining the town on the north, to which the defendant replied that he wished to have four streets and four ranges of squares laid off through his land; and being requested to name the streets, he called them Pendleton, Wythe, Madison and Montgomery, by which names they were designated on the plan; and the defendant had sold or let lots agreeably to the plan, and designated as bounded by those streets. Some of those streets were actually laid out, and the corners designated by stakes and stones at the request of individuals. On the plan the defendant did not designate any smaller quantity of ground than regular squares of two acres each, agreeably to the manner in which the town was laid off by the act for establishing the

same.

The property assessed laid within the four new ranges of squares above mentioned, and the defendant had by several deeds sold and conveyed several squares and parcels of land less than two acres within those four ranges of squares.

C. Simms, for plaintiff in error, contended, 1st, That the land was not liable to be taxed until it was laid off into half-acre lots, and that it had never been so laid off, although it had been laid off into two acre squares.

2d. That the corporation had power to assess inf habitants only; and,

V.

ALEXANDER 3d. That there cannot be a judgment upon moMAYOR, &c. tion, because there was always personal property of Mr. Alexander in the town which might have been distrained for the taxes.

Swann, contra.

The corporation has power to make all by-laws for the good government of the town, and not repugnant to the general laws of the state. This included the power to order and provide for the pavement of the streets, and to raise taxes for that purpose, by assessments on the persons and property within the town.

The acts of the 13th and 16th December, 1796, clearly recognise the power to tax the property of non-residents.

It was unnecessary to lay out the half-acre lots. The squares were regularly divided into four lots each by ideal lines.

The mode of collecting the taxes by distress and. sale of personal property, was only a cumulative remedy. The corporation was not bound to resort. to it. It was a more severe and harsh manner of proceeding than that by notice and motion, especially as the principal object of both parties was to try the right of the corporation to tax the property.

February 8.

MARSHALL, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court, as follows, viz.

In the proceedings in this cause two errors are assigned by the plaintiff.

1st. That the corporation had no power to assess the tax for which the judgment was rendered.

2d. That the judgment is irregular, because rendered on motion.

Both these points are to be decided by the several ALEXANDES acts of the legislature of Virginia respecting the town of Alexandria.

In support of the first it is contended,

1st. That the corporation has no power to tax property not belonging to an inhabitant of the town; and Charles Alexander was not an inhabitant.

2d. That the property, on which this tax was assessed, was not within the corporation.

The words of the act of 1779, which is the first act shown to the court that confers the power of taxation, are these "The mayor, recorder, aldermen and common councilmen shall have power to erect and repair work-houses, houses of correction and prisons, or other public buildings, for the benefit of the said town; and to make by-laws and ordinances for the regulation and good government of the said town; provided such by-laws or ordinances shall not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the laws and constitution of this commonwealth, and to assess the inhabitants for the charge of repairing the streets and highways."

For the plaintiff it is contended that the power of taxation, here given, is, in terms, confined to assessments made on the inhabitants. On the part of the defendants it is urged that the express power to assess the inhabitants is for the sole purpose of improving their streets, and that an express power is also given to makę expensive establishments, the means of erecting which could be furnished only by taxes; that the power to make by-laws must therefore necessarily be construed to involve the power of taxing, at least for these objects.

Without deciding this question as depending merely on the original law, it is to be observed that acts in pari materia are to be construed together as forming one act. If in a subsequent clause of the same act provisions are introduced, which show

MAYOR, &e