Wade v. City of Richmond
Supreme Court of Virginia
The first of these eases is a bill for an injunction by William R. Wade and others, in which they allege that they are citizens, tax-payers, property-holders, and voters in the county of Henrico, beyond the proposed boundary of the city of Richmond; and that they are also creditors of the county.
Read the full summary
The first of these eases is a bill for an injunction by William R. Wade and others, in which they allege that they are citizens, tax-payers, property-holders, and voters in the county of Henrico, beyond the proposed boundary of the city of Richmond; and that they are also creditors of the county. That the General Assembly, by an act passed on the 13th of February, 1867, entitled an act to extend and define the boundaries of the city of Richmond, ^propose to take from the county of Henrico and add to the city of Richmond a large portion of the territory, and about half the population and…
1Opinion of the CourtEl Ves, J.
These cases present for consideration, in two aspects, the constitutionality of the act of Assembly, passed 13th February, 1867, extending the limits of the city of Eichmond. In the first, the *728plaintiffs in error, as residents, *voters, tax-payers and property-holders in the county of Henrico, and creditors of the same, complain that this act violates their constitutional rights in these several capacities by the withdrawal of population and the resources of taxation from the county, . the disturbance of their rights of representation, the augmentation of their county levies, and the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kinney v. City of SyracuseNew York Supreme Court · 1859