Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1847-12-31

produce an equally strenuous uPPos"'oH W ~.
in Chancery. 1t is worthy Of remark Ihdt !ne
company does mol found The present proceeding
upon any complaint against the Legislature, noi
does il seek 10 come in collision with that de'
parment OF the Government; on The contrary, the
argument of the company is that whilst Inc Le
eislalure have made liberal appropriation 10
aid in an important public improvement, theii
agent has lhwarled their express will, as declared
in their la and obsirucIed by an unau'hoIiSeu
Interference the current OF pnblic spi'il ana Hue
rally II this allegation OF the company Oe sus-
lained BY the judgment OF The Court men .ne ID
would be no collision between the company anu
The Legislature but between the latter ana me
Board of Public Works. |, is commended, on be-
hall of the Board of Public Works. thai The com
pauy, in the present proceeding, IS IN pursuit VI
equitable rights, claimed By the rclators, The
Louisa Railroad Company. This argument ooes
ncl strike The Court with much force. Inc Cd
iect is not 10 call on this Court to adJudse any
rights of the company in eqniIy-it was mercy
TO compel the agent OF the Stale 10 OBEY us law,
made by constitutional authority, and do an act
directed 10 be done by it, What the effect OF that
act when performed, will be- il is not the duty or
proyincc of The Court al this time, and in This
proceeding to enquire; but il may be safely said,
that, when performed, it will emile The parties 10
such benefits as law aud justice will confer on
them. This is mol case OF plaintiff asking
the Court 10 enforce an equitable right, or 10 give
him Judgment or decree for money, or other
thing, but 10 compel an agent TO obey law, by
doing merely ministerial act which that law
enjoins.
In 9TH Bacon, 1876, il is said, speaking OF
mandamus: "This writ is the proper remedy TO
enforce obedience 10 acts Of Parliament, and 10
the Kings charters. and in such cases is de-
mantabe CO de6itO justitiG.'
The case OF Kendall vs.. the United States, 10
Peters, 534, is a strong case 10 the same effect,
and TO sustain the fitness OF the remedy by man.
damns in The present case. In that case The act
OF Congress directed The Postmaster General TO
allow such credits TO Stokes & Co. rs should be
awarded 10 them by the Solicitor Of the Treasu-
ry. The Solicitor decided that Stokes & Co.
were entitled TO certain credits, which the Post
master General refused TO allow him. The Su-
preme Court decided that it was proper by man.
Gamus 10 compel that officer 10 allow the credits.
The idea that Kendall was Trustee, or thai
Stokes & Co. had an equitable claim, was sug-
sesied b. no body in that case, and il would have
been done with more plausbity than in This, Tor
Stokes Co. were in pursuit Of money, and
would obtain it by The award Of the Solicitor
Here The party is called on to do mere minste-
rial act, which may or may not lead 10 Obtaining
money, according 10 ullerior circumstances. The
Court therefore, thinks that The Louisa Railroad
Company had no remedy by suit in Chancery
10 effect The object sought 10 be obtained by the
mandamus.
In relation 10 the supposed remedy under the
section OF The act of the 25th February, 1919, en-
titled IAN act 10 reduce into one The several acts
concerning the Auditor and Treasurer" it is the
opinion OF The Court that the true construction Of
the law confines The light OF appeal 10 cases where
The applicant 10 the Auditor exhibits claim or
demand on the Commonwealth for money, and
upon his refusal TO allow The same is entitled TO
appeal 10 the Court of Law or Chancery, accord
ing 10 the nature OF his demand. In this case,
what would be the nature of the application q
The Louisa Railroad Company would alege thai
they had applied to The Board of Public Works
TO subscribe for stock on behalf OF The Common
wealth and that they had refused 10 do so. Could
the Audil1r give them any relief2 Their claim
is moi for honey-none is due from the Common
wealth; they exhibit no account 10 be audited; ne
can draw no warrant on the Treasurer in their
lavor. Could the Auditor make any order or
decree commanding The Board OF Public Works
10 subscribed Thi, will moi be pretended. The
case is entirely without his sphere of action or Of
fetal duty. Besides, ii is worthy Of remark, that
The Auditor is himself a member OF The very Board
OF Public Works whose act, or rather failure 10
act, is complained Of
The Court cannot think that the Louisa Rail-
road Company had any remedy under The act OF
Assembly last referred 10, and that it presented no
obstacle 10 resort TO writ OF mandamns.
The next proposition on which the Board OF
Public Works found their defence is u the fol-
lowing effect:
2 That II il be conceded for sake OF the arsu-
mcnt, that the mandamus is the appropriate re-
medy for a wrongful refusal by the Board ofPub-
lie Works 10 subscribe for the stock OF The Com
panv, il cannot be awarded against the Board in
III bora hau MR. of Tp-
fused TO subscribe for the stock OF The Company,
but did refuse righlfully and legally and because
they were bound TO refuse in duty and conscience,
and by the laws Of The land.
By The terms oil the act of March s, Si7, The
Board of Public Works we're not bound 10 sub
~'iLN Until "'ne'e ia" "-I~N''c I'LL, $50" "is" pau
or secured The amount 10 be paid They were OF
course, in The first instance, TO pronounce on the re-
sulaIiy of The subscription d individuals, and also
on The tacl, whether The subscription had been
paid or properly secured. Ii in the return 10 the
mandamus, The Board OF Public Works had de-
MED that there had been subscription, or that II
had been properly secuted, il sustained by evil
dence the manGamus would have laied. But
thai ground is abandoned by the Board OF Pub
| lie Works. or rather never assumed. The proof is
complete that subscriptions had been duly made
| and secured When The Board of Public Works,
| therefore, allece that they have mol wronslully
refused to subscribe, buI have done so IighiulIy
and legally, they mean 10 rest their defence upon
considera ions, independent OF the particular
terms oil The ACT OF March 8, 1877. II il be as
sumed that the mandamns is the appropriate re-
medy, then the OnuS probonds is on the Board TO
| shew sufficient reason or authority 10 refuse
the performance of the required duty. The
Counsel for The Beard OF Public Works have
argued 10 sustain their refusal on various
grounds. The first which shall consider, is the
general character and authority attributed by
them Ia The Board of Public Works.
The Counsel seem 10 suppose that this Board
possess powers Of very large and comprehen.
sive character, and was intended TO exercise a
control over the operations Of all companies crea-
ted Tor he improvement, OF the country. A very
superficial view Of the act creating the fund Tor
| internal improvement would suffice 10 shew The
iallacy Of this idea.
The Board of Public Works were incorpora-
ted to act as agents oil The General Assembly,
to administer that fund according 10 their direc
TONS The Sd section OF The act creating The
fund, 2 Revised Code, 20l, provides, "That Tor
the purpose of preserving and improving this
fund and disbursins such portions OF ii as The
General Assembly may from lime 10 time direct
to be applied TO any objects OF internal improve
mem, il shall be and the same is hereby vested
I'M corporate body" The Ilh section, Up 203
provides that The Board OF Public Works "shal
be and they arc hereby authorized 10 subscribe,
in behalf of The Commonwealth, to such public
works as The General Assembly may from lime
to time agree 10 palronize, such portions oil the
revenue of the tnnd tor internal improvement as
may be directed by law" &c. &c.
The funds of the Commonwealth are not put
at the disposal of this Board, but mos sedu-
lousy kept under the control and guardianship
Of The General Assembly. The powers of the
Board are not broad and comprehensive but
specified and defined. In relation 10 Railroad
or Turnpike Company, the Assembly first de.
cides upon the proprieiy Of establishing it; they
fix The rouIc, The beginning and the terminus.
they specify the sum they arc willing 10 sub.
scribe, and then the agency oil The Board Of Pub
lie Works is merely ministerial, TO perform The
acl Of subscribing. The Court thinks that no
valid argument can be drawn from The general
organization or powers of the Board, TO warrant
the exercise OF the power claimed by it. But
it is commended that The Board has discretion
| ;Io II ;rb, n :p1y