First Virginia Bank of Tidewater v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

First Virginia Bank of Tidewater v. Commonwealth

187 S.E.2d 186, 212 Va. 654

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedMarch 6, 1972

DocketRecord 7723 and 7724

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 S.E.2d 186 (First Virginia Bank of Tidewater v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

First Virginia Bank of Tidewater v. Commonwealth, 187 S.E.2d 186, 212 Va. 654 (Va. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are called upon to determine the meaning of “contiguous”, as used in a paragraph of the Virginia Banking Act, paragraph (c) of Code § 6.1-39.

Paragraph (a) of Code § 6.1-39 provides that no state bank may engage in business in more than one place, except that the State Corporation Commission may, when satisfied that public convenience and necessity will be served, authorize a bank to establish branches within the limits of the city, town or county in which the parent bank is located. Paragraph (b) of Code § 6.1-39 permits the merger *655 of banks wherever located in the State, provided the State Corporation Commission finds that public convenience and necessity will be served. Paragraph (c) of Code § 6.1-39 provides:

“Notwithstanding the limitations of the foregoing paragraphs, the State Corporation Commission may, when satisfied that public convenience and necessity will thereby be served, authorize the establishment of branch banks in cities contiguous to the county or city in which the parent bank is located, and the establishment of branch banks in counties contiguous to the city in which the parent bank is located. Establishment of such branches may be by merger, consolidation, purchase of assets or creation of a new branch; but if the parent bank is located in a city such branches in the contiguous county may not be established more than five miles outside the city limits.” (Emphasis supplied.)

After a hearing pursuant to notice to all state and national banks in Virginia, the State Corporation Commission held that “contiguous”, as used in paragraph (c), means economically contiguous or compact, not geographically contiguous. The Commission then declared that Norfolk is “contiguous” to Portsmouth because those cities “constitute a compact economic community”; that Norfolk is not “contiguous” to either Hampton or Newport News because neither Norfolk and Hampton nor Norfolk and Newport News constitute an “economic community”. First Virginia Bank of Tidewater and Virginia National Bank appeal. *

“Contiguous” usually means either physically touching or in close physical proximity. Holston S. & P. Co. v. Campbell, 89 Va. 396, 16 S.E. 274 (1892) (touching); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 492 (1967) (touching); Black’s Law Dictionary 391 (4th Ed. 1951) (in close proximity). Nothing in paragraph (c) indicates an unusual meaning of “contiguous”; in fact, the language of paragraph (c) proclaims the usual sense of “contiguous”. We can find no warrant for the unique meaning ascribed by the Commission.

We therefore declare that “contiguous”, as used in paragraph (c) of Code § 6.1-39, connotes geographic contiguity.

Reversed and final order.

*

For a history of related litigation, see Virginia Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission, 448 F.2d 425 (4th Cir. 1971); Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Camp, 333 F.Supp.847 (ED.Va. 1971).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

We are called upon to determine the meaning of “contiguous”, as used in a paragraph of the Virginia Banking Act, paragraph (c) of Code § 6.1-39.

Paragraph (a) of Code § 6.1-39 provides that no state bank may engage in business in more than one place, except that the State Corporation Commission may, when satisfied that public convenience and necessity will be served, authorize a bank to establish branches within the limits of the city, town or county in which the parent bank is located. Paragraph (b) of Code § 6.1-39 permits the merger *655 of banks wherever located in the State, provided the State Corporation Commission finds that public convenience and necessity will be served. Paragraph (c) of Code § 6.1-39 provides:

“Notwithstanding the limitations of the foregoing paragraphs, the State Corporation Commission may, when satisfied that public convenience and necessity will thereby be served, authorize the establishment of branch banks in cities contiguous to the county or city in which the parent bank is located, and the establishment of branch banks in counties contiguous to the city in which the parent bank is located. Establishment of such branches may be by merger, consolidation, purchase of assets or creation of a new branch; but if the parent bank is located in a city such branches in the contiguous county may not be established more than five miles outside the city limits.” (Emphasis supplied.)

After a hearing pursuant to notice to all state and national banks in Virginia, the State Corporation Commission held that “contiguous”, as used in paragraph (c), means economically contiguous or compact, not geographically contiguous. The Commission then declared that Norfolk is “contiguous” to Portsmouth because those cities “constitute a compact economic community”; that Norfolk is not “contiguous” to either Hampton or Newport News because neither Norfolk and Hampton nor Norfolk and Newport News constitute an “economic community”. First Virginia Bank of Tidewater and Virginia National Bank appeal. *

“Contiguous” usually means either physically touching or in close physical proximity. Holston S. & P. Co. v. Campbell, 89 Va. 396, 16 S.E. 274 (1892) (touching); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 492 (1967) (touching); Black’s Law Dictionary 391 (4th Ed. 1951) (in close proximity). Nothing in paragraph (c) indicates an unusual meaning of “contiguous”; in fact, the language of paragraph (c) proclaims the usual sense of “contiguous”. We can find no warrant for the unique meaning ascribed by the Commission.

We therefore declare that “contiguous”, as used in paragraph (c) of Code § 6.1-39, connotes geographic contiguity.

Reversed and final order.

*

For a history of related litigation, see Virginia Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission, 448 F.2d 425 (4th Cir. 1971); Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission v. Camp, 333 F.Supp.847 (ED.Va. 1971).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E.2d 186, 212 Va. 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-virginia-bank-of-tidewater-v-commonwealth-va-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack