Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-02-16
RICHMOND. FEBRUARY n ias5
UyVCH4RY,ERED B1NE,S

10. ~ '"e Soa'' ~ iPPedts-rhe Court has been n
nss enough to furnish with copy ofihem a, our -
quest. - ~ ou' iS-
~ "e Court Of appeals Feb. Term, 1899.
WILSON VS.. SPENCER
Judge Hodne delivered the res,lnt;o, oe,,,.
Court. VI INC
ms Is an action of debt, brought il Tho
{ court, by the appellee, upon a single
pm Inc defendants pleaded two pleas. STAT
no III substance, that that bill was given tn
u 'e P,esiuent oil an unchartered bank. estah-
"eo .'n'Tary 10 the provisions of the sta
tues III such case made and nrov;ded and
mat IL was given in consideration of b,nl-
no!es' enitted by the said bank, in equal yio-
a'ioh OF tAose statutes. These pleas were
ue'hurreu 10, ana me Facts therein stated, are
consequently ADMITTED. The county court
ea'e Juuen'ent Tor Inc plaintiff, ON the demur-
rer, and that Judgment was affirmed hy ,h.
superior court: from which judgment If ae-
hr,nance, an appeal was taken to this conf
1t Is not easy for this court to perceive ~,
what grounds this judgment can b. justified
-AithouSh the actOf Feb. 9th, 1916. 10 Rav
20. III was not in fnrce, when this bill was
gwen, the act. of 1905 was, fsee Rev 70
pa. III, CHI 207, \ 2.) and the bill was given
Tor "a consideration utterly prohibited by that
ACT IL was gwen for "A consideration, proh
o.eu under severe penalties and the cases
citeu ior the appellant, incontestably prove.
,hat any contract founded on AN act forbidden
oy Statute, under penalty, 10 void although
1t be not expressly declared to be SD :and that
no action hes to enforce it-Whateyer miobt
ne SAID, In relation to AN action brought to re-
cover the amount OF the bank notes. given g
iie consideration of this bill, in favor of tbe
hoider against the bank,--in favor, as mig +
De argued, OF an innocent ind rsee or hold,
OF The said nOies,-it is clear that no ac,ion
VIII lie, on bond given to secure the nav
inent thereof, IN favor of The bauk,--the par "
moie emphaiically offending against the Doll
cy oil The act-it is this last mentioned party
VINO Is now asking the court, TO give its aid,
10 Violate the provisions of an act of rreat NH
lie policy aud utility. There can be no ground
for such Il pretension, unless we consider the
act OF 1905, as repealed, at the time, and as
having no binding force or authority.-In re-
'aiion 10 a law OF this importance and cha
.racter, and OF such long standing in our code.
we ought not lightly to imply such repeal
IL should be shewn to be repealed, either ex--
pi essly, or bya strong and necessary imnlica-
ton-The only ground on which that infe-
renee IS attempted to be supported, in this
case, arises from the suspension of the act of
feb' 2fth, 1916. That act was additional TO.
that oil 1908, and created further penalties and
iorititures Tor It's IntractOn but ii left the act
Il
declaration, In the act OF 1916, that notes hills
sc. Issued contrary to its provisions, should
be null and void, it cannot be inferred. that
those made contrary to the act of 1905, are
'aiid. HE suspension of the former act does
not necessarily carry with it, the repeal or
suspension OF the latter nor did a particular
provision OF the act of 1916, \ Z, specially pro-
hIbitIng suits, by the banks therein contem-
plated, interfere with similar prohibitions, re
suiiins, on general principles of law, from the
inhibilions contained in the act of 1905. A
suspension OF the act Of 1916, therefore, did
not suspend, repeal, or interfere with the pro-
Visions OF the act OF 1905 nor does a recog-
milton contained in the suspending act. of a
right IN the banks, therein mentioned, to closA
tii.ir Transactions, in conformity with the pro-
Visions oil The act of 1916, annul or apply to
the prohibitions contained in the act of 1905.
mat suspension left the banks aforesaid. on
the ground they occupied, before the passage
OF the act suspended but did not place them
In hetter situation ; and, far less, as was ar
gued, DID 1t leSaliae and charter those associa-
IONS. Ii lett those banks free TO arrange their
matters, II they could, without suit and I'M
by, the severe and additional restraints
and penalties, ofthe act of 1915. II did NOT
mean TO interfere with the original act. when
1t only purported TO suspend, in part anoiher
act, more egectuatty to suppress the calculation
of notes, emitted by unchartered banks. The
suspension only operated up to the point, en-
braced by the last act, and did not 20 beyond
it.
Under the admission that the prohibition in
the act of 1905, is not repealed, the counsel
for the appellee comedies, that in regard 10 in
dlvldnal cases. the law would be decided a.
gainst him but he claims an exemption for.
his clients, on the ground ofthe erient ofthis'
coniederacy 10 infringe the laws, and of what
ne Is Pleased to call, disease of the body.pO-
may be cases, in which the still
voice OF the law may not be heard, northe
power OF the civil officer, be competent toex-
ecute its dgments.-Thaf, however, is an
extreme case, partakes of the nature ofare-
Voiutlon, and, IN point of magnitude, is not
shewn to exist IN the case before us. But where
would gentlemen draw the Ii ne i'm such eases?
we know OF no such boundary in the case be-
lore us. AHthatwe know, is, that certain asso-
Citations of individuals, have set themselves
up, IN open violation of the laws, TO exercise
4 high function of sovereignty, at most only
to the power ofthe legislature.
We are, therefore, unanimously Of opinion
That the Judgment, in this case, IS erroneous.
,nd that 1t should be reversed, and entered
or the appellants
MCGUIRE W.. Ashley
va tue general grounds Of our decision, in
ne case OF Wilson VS.. Spencer, we are of OPT
non to affirm the decree. There is, 10 princ-
DE, no difference between the two cases ex-
'ept that, in the present, the interposition is
" court of equity That court as well as
court OF law, will interfere to prohibit the
fleet OF contracts, made in violation of laws,
nacted Tor the public good. The cases cited
nily support this position, and are entirely sa-
The decree is to be affirmed.
SNYDER VS.. DALEY.