Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-01-21
A FARMER
HiiliCni and -uoyu Coilrpe.

schools and put down Professorshps; the statute al
December, lI.9, disseminating the Grammar school
abolished the Professorship, aud the salary attached
thereto.
Q"ere--If this college is not on publice stab
| lishnent?
The plaintiff brough, an action OIL the case
against the college in order to recove, Ej5:3 s,er-
ling, for arrears of salary due HIM Professor OF
the Grammar school. Plea, non Gssnnipsii, aud
issue. The jury found special verdict, stating
the college charter tho original statutes for arra-
ing the schools, of which the Grammar school was
one, aud several subsequent Statutes That The
plaintiff was regularly appointed Professor of tina,
school. performed his duty, and received his salary
10 December 25ti, 1873. The verdict, also, rrfrrs
10 the proceedings of the visitors in 1889 and 1874
wherein is rected the visitors as of the
9TH oi December, I7I9, whereby the Grammar
school was discontinued. -
In October, 1877, the plaintiff applied To the Ge-
ncra! Court for writ of Hsd1iiamuy, to restore him
To his Ptofe 'sorship, which was adjourned to this
court for difficulty and refused. Whrrcupon he
brought this action to6 the arrears of salary fror,
tho 18th day of December, 1879. The District
Court gave Judgment in favor of the college; and
from that jndg .nent the plaintiff appealed to this
court
| Ipicktdm ior the appellant.
| The question is if Bracken was legally removed,
If 50, twas by the statute of 1879 but the jury do
not tind the statute; they only find evidence of it,
they merely state tho proceedings, which is insult
cient; for, the recital OF the STATUTE was not find
ns the statute itself aud, the eOre the verdict only
finds evidence of facts, and not facts themselves
ConsC cutly, where fdciax de moro len o,rh,
to DE awarded
! The statute made, when thu meeting was
not publicly aud regularly notified, as it should
nave been; and, for want of which, the statute is
void. But, if the statute of no effect for want
OF notice, then the verdict is in favor of the plain
tiff so that any way the judgment Of the district
court erroneous.
RandoiDh contra
The want of notice did no, render the statute
void. No part nf the charter requires it. The
visitors are not bound by the rules of Corporatiuns
III general. They are not like the Professors. But
they are corporation of particular constructions;
| and THEN functions visitoriai
| AS the objection that the statute is unt found
| IL may be answered, that our finding is at lcast
equal 10 that ON tie part of the plaintiff which
says that Brncke'l was appointc and, therefore if
IT be sufficient as tn us, il is him also Bus ii is
sufficient as 10 both for, finding the recital is equal
10 finding the statute in hacr verba. IL is found
that he continued TO exercise his functions till pre-
vented by the proceedings aforesaid; which urccs
| snrily refers 70 the statute. Aud the validity #
that was sci'led 10y the decision in thr motion for
the ma'idotus which it appears was determined or.
the nu,its.
/ Wickham. The former decision Was oi,le that
tine college might make such st;,s,rte the.
question is. ii they did SOP And, ~. contend that
il is not properly found that they did Ii is snid
that the visitors arc bound by the roles of oor
porations III general; bot there is grou.d for the
distinction. At least, they hound By the rules
OF commons sense, which require that a majority
should exercise the powers, and thcse was not a.
majority here. II is said, thar if their finding is
had, is ours; but tina, just brings To the risre
dcaor0 again. The finding, however, is dilFr.ent
for the very statute which, appointed the plaintiff
is found.
Randolph. majority OF the whole were pre-
sent at the meeting.
Wickhan. But, thar omly majority of o
minority; and not d Ma ;oritv of the whole.
Pendeton, President. This is an action on the
case brought by the plaintiff to recover EOS scr-
ling for arrears OF saary due him professor OF
the grammar school, ia the college of William and
Mary, on three counts Of i,piebuGins QsSiln,psi!-
The july find special vrrdic stating the college
charter; the original statute for arranging the
schools, of which the grammar school was one, and
several subsequent statutes
They find that the plaintiff was regularly APP
pointed professor of that school, performed his duty,
and received the salary to Dec. 25ta, lf79.
The demand is for the amount Of the salary from
that time; and the defence is, that hy the statute OF
December the 9TH, 1873, the grammar school
was discontinued; which put end to the duty
aud salary OF hc professor II is found in the pro-
ceedngs referred To, that such statute was really
pasSo on that day, hut was lost from the negligence
OF the clerk 10 record it, and the proceedings found
III iIo2 aud lIGf, were TO restore its FORM II is
supposed its force commenced from the time of
ing it. II Is not found that the professor did any
duty afterwards, but that lie was ready TO have
done It; tfom whence is presumable, well as
from his being member Of the corporate BODY and
bound to take notice Of the statutes.
In October 1857, Mr.. Brdcken applied to the
Gcnsrsl Court for D,dnduDfus, 10 restore him 10
the Office, which adjourned into this court for
difficulty. IN June, 1880, it was heard here, and
continued over term for consideration, and to be
re-heard.
November 1890. On re-hearinr, the mnnfG-
mns vas denied on the mcrit,;t which, believe,
was inserted for two purposes. LIST. To shcw the.
case had been fully entered into, as if the papers
. had been before us on the return Of the mdndanus
ID. To meet M. objection iearmly insisted on that
The General Court h0d no pDicer TO igtermeddle ,rt
His affairs Ofhc COHcge, UpOn HE Engiid, pTees-
dents, applying 10 priraie donations for Cotegts;
bit ,ciict some gfNse JtdZes at last ofVt,om vu'
one, UOU.hf ddH0i dUply ~ orr College, 1c,jch had
pUbiic 1nd no! prirafe foundation: and 10 qroid
I q supposjtioH, M0tHe 9sni0i ras on HGt ground
rus reasor FOR pircing IT on he merits.
1t is remembered. that the discussion was lcue-
thy. both in court and conference The detail is
forgot, bu, is well rccollecicd that the question
turned upon the power of the Visitors 10 change the
/ arrangements Of schools made by the original sta
lutcs and to discontinue the grammar school. The
charter and statutes were all before Us, and among
others, that of December, l119, which must have
bccn allowed its full force since there being par
lculdr order for bis motion, the denial must have
proceeded from the statute disseminating the school
nd lis office with II. But if he had no right To tlc
Office, be could have to the salary, the purposc
Of this writ; aud, therefore, juigmen, was rightly
! given for the defendant.
, Unanimously affirmed.
= Sec Sd rol. Calls Reports, p. 573.
DIED,