Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1869-08-25
LOCAL NEWS.
Important Legal Decision.


audra. August term, 1859
Decatur H. Miller IS. City Council Of Alex
anlria On suggestions against O.. II. Smoot,
W. ID. Corse & Co, w. H. Newman, t. q.
kiolette, James Green, II. II. Miller. Samuel
Miller, William Gregory and Charles 2. Shaw.
Cauehton for plaintiff Beach for defendants.
JUDGE LYSANDER HILL 5 DECISION.
These cases arise in the following manner :
The plaintiff has recovered q Judgment against
the Common Council OF Alexandra amounting
10 several thousand dollars. The creditor,
Miller, conceiying that chapter lSS OF the
Code OF Virginia, 1860. has enlarged the rene
dies against corporations, has come lnto court,
10 accordance with the provisions OF that chap
GER, and suggested that byreason OF the hen OF
has writ OF R.ri IIci.tS there Is 4 liability on
the several defendants, and has Summoned
them TO answer as to such liability. The de-
teudants appear, and, by their answers, or the
admissions Of their counsel IL seems that
number OF them are liable to the corporation
OF Alexandria Tor unpaid taxes; one, New
man, i, liable for certain rents and another,
COrse X Co. Is a banking house, one member
81 which Is treasurer OF the corporation, aud
ior his own convenience, keeps its funds with
theirs and It's accounts on their books. The
question Tor the court to determine Is whether
under the circumstances, the judgment creditor
van RaTnlSNtS tiiS UOutl lu NlIC MINUS u 'L'
various parties aud have them applied directly
ia satisfaction 0t his claim, under sad chapter
l- OF the code.
Dn behalf OF tn Judgmeat creditor, 1t Is
-,nteuded that the language OF the statute,
,,ect, . AMI / n is 81 broad n 10 include all
..,rporatous a. well - all individuals and
that whether the estate ID b. levied upon b.
long to the city OF Alexaadiia or to any private
person. upon suggestion against the party hay
.ug such estate in his possession, the creditor
eau reach it and apply It on ms Injgment.
GA behalf Of the defendants, It Il argued
that has statute was not intended by Il trameG9
u BE- applied to municipal corporations, and
that therefore thes" rrlcecdrqs houId ha dis
missed with costs
Previous u the enactment Of chapter lSS,
td- remedy against corporations bad been dit
irraut ia carta'n mIter,al respects, from that
against indiy,dnll~ The Judgment creditor of
an Individual where the property OF his debtor
aid at be- reached By the ordinary eXecu
tons could take out h.s writ Ut C'ps'' al
t',,fte,tritHt. aud thercupOn lmprl>On the
ieLtor and thus compel him TO make payment.
Such wit could not, however, for Obvious
reasons. be- i~sued against a corporation and,
therefore, upon return OF aU0d hDa", the
,alpmrui creditor had no remedy kept by
maudu;nus to compel the corporation III 1t
wrrr tauuclpal) to lay aud ruitc. = special tax
i.i the paymrut -, the debt,
The Legislature ot NIrp,nu abolished the
remedy by e. ST., aud provided another IA It's
place, va that set forth ia chapter lNN OF the
code, and relied upon by the plaintiff in these
Cluses In doing this 1t employed words of
peucrll import, broad enough, prlma iacie, 10
cover corporations rs we'll Is individuals. Tie
question Is whether II meant 10 use these words
20 thc broad sense, or only ~ applying to in.
dviduah The following considerations may
hello as to q correct conclusion upon tins point:
L. The Legislature was obviously aboliShng
i particular method Of proceeding and sub
,tiutiGg another therefor. We are not lett IN
ioutt ol this fact, for, beslles that the second
stctioG Of chapter lSS abOllShcS the e.. ST.,
aud the very next sentence enters upon the |
uew provision which was hencetOrth to occupy |
H. place the revisorS have left Us foot note |
expressly stating their intentions in thus Tram
iug this law. Whatever authority this CON- |
iarutary may have, understand the fact TO be |
5nccdel. The presumption, therefore, lm |
upliately attaches that the substitute Is strict
iva substitute There is no presumption that
he Legislature meant 10 20 any farther than
q, mako provision that should take the place
Il the abolished wit OF caplaS AT satlsiacl-
cudum.
. There had been, up to that time, two
remedies, one against corporations and the
other against individuals The Legislature
abolished the latter remedy, but, apparently,
rit the former Just as before. lt did not IN
terms 50 much as alludc to it, or in any way
suggest that il was taken into consideration.
There is no doubt that the proceeding BY
lnanlamuS i still valid as formerly. 1t intend
"a 70 be- altered in any way, the Legislature
should, aud undoubtedly would, have so stated
ln the Act. We cannot presume that the an
c,ent remGdy was changed IN the slightest de-
vree unless 1t clearly 50 appears Even II the
Legislature meant to add the new remedy 1t
ought to have expressly provided that the old
should, in consequence thereof, be altered or
abolished, or as | conceive, the old remedy
would remain Just as before. and we should
have simply an accumulation OF remedies Now
what necessity for this The old remedy
ARainSt corporations was full, complete, and
liCquate. In my view OF the case it still |
stands Is there not fair presumption that |
the LEGISLATURE did not Intend to pile remedy |
IA remedy, especially when we already know |
what it, object jrrS IN making the new provl
! SONS viz 20 till the place Of another remedy, |
10 different class OF cases, which it h0i
.tolished II would seem that there Is pre-
-unpt,Ju upon presumption against the PLAIN
,t construction Of the statute
Still It must be conceded that the language |
: Tie statute is very broad aud strong per
4 'ap- sufficiently 81 to overcome the force of
Io3' presumptiOns il they stood without other
heil /. the defendant corporation were OF
t''uu'1N nature, as for example, back, L
A"i'ai "'mpauy, canal company, &c, &C.,
'E'uh ht''tate long before deprlving its
''d''o's Of thc new remcly. But it is not
s eh Al organization Ii il political, mum
RAJ Its existence aud efficiency are necessary
' Tue Welfare OF large community. and are
1uma''y associated with the whole yayern
4 AFn'ai machinery Of the State. Certain re
'U', III" tr9m this fac. which will now pro.
A t5I g. consider.
..' There Is almost a conclusive pre~ump
'''t 10 AL a2ts 0t lcgirlatiuu, tl''t the ifsiSia
4 ,'i-. Which J., always supposed TO act Tor the |
4 pdtA gDai, w0ull not enact law the eXecl |
. t"u It which must necessarily Interfere with |
. a1I tmb!Ira>S the ordinary machinery OF the |
-''e,nme0t | said almost 4 conclusive pre- |
i sumption. because the presumption ~ not alb |
\eIiUicly conclusive. Il can be rebutted by |
|'"JJdS referring definitely to the subject matter |
/ add exrry sly negatlvlng every other Intcrprc-
4 ttt,oa. Bat It has been long aud we'll settled |
4 ;Lst words Of mere general itapolt alo not sui