Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1876-01-15
Decisions of the Court Of Appeals.

Board of Supervisors of King and Queen W..
Fauntleroy; Terry's assignees vs.. Board Of
Supervisors of Pittsylvania; Whites execu-
tors vs.. The County of Surry Board of Su-
p~ervisors of Stafford vs.. Hewitt's executors.
The court says "As to the particular
CLAIMS Involved in these suits, they are claims
| against the respective couDtles tor supplies
furnished the poor and soldiers families, and
Tor Confederate money loaned the county to
purchase salt for the people of the county-all
of which was rendered necessary by the act OF
secession, the formation OF the ConfeGeracy OF
! States, aud the war between the States when
was consequent thereon. II there had been
no secession and formation OF a Contederacy
these debts would never have existed. : "
| am OF opinion that peither of these claims
cas be rightfully and lawfully enforced now
agaiost the said c%ounties. Upon whom would
the burden fall? Not upon those who con-
traoted the debts, or got anything tor them, or
even promised to pay them but upon the
people of the several counties charged-upon
men who received nothing for what is now de,
nauded of them, except so far as it subserVed
the Contederacy and aided in its support, 10
which they who make the demand were as
much Interested as they we're, or ought to
have been. The men who perilled their lives,
endured the hardships and exposure OF the
field and the camp, shed their blood and
suuaudered their estates 10 the support OF a
cause which all had espoused, aud which lay
near to the heats Of all, but which was :oSt.
II is not right that they who bore the heat aud
burden of the day for the commoD cause and
suffered the loss OF everything should have
thrown uron them also the burden OF these
claims. Tie supplies we're evidently furnished,
or the money loaned, 10 the Interest OF the
Conf.deracy and if that cause had been sue
c~essfu!. they woull doubtless have been paid.
IF unsuccessful, they had no good reason to
expect payment, aud their loss is 90 more than
it would have been if they had contracted d.
rectly with the Confederate Government, IN.
stead of with its subordinate divisions. =
NV opinion as TO all OF them | do NOT rest ex
c!u,ireiy, uo1 mainly. upon the constitutional
! Inhibition, Stale or Federal, hut upon the
ground, and chiefly That there is 90 legal obi
CATION upyo the present government or the
State, or upon lts counties Or municipalities, 10
, pay such Gains, aud that 1t w1uld be lnequ!t-
able now 70 enforce their levy upon the people
of the several couoties of this Commonwealth.
The Medication OF my mlod was al first aVerse
TO the conclusion TO which | have arrived !;
but after much REFLECTION and careful consider
alton, which the difficulty aud the great i'm
! Dol IducS vi Vic 81 J-SN 1" Nt-SS
Jog i. the conclusion Of ms 0cst juigmen'.'
The IF c. OF decision OF the court upon the
cases Is d. follows;
Board Of Supervisors of klpg and Queen
county vs.. Fauntleroy. From the Circuit Court
Of King aud Queen. Reversed.
Board Of Supervisors Of Stafford county vs.
Hcwitt's executors two cases. From Circuit
Court OF Stafford. Reversed
Terry. assignee, vs.. The Board Of Superb
sors of Pit %sylvania. From Circuit Court OF
PittsyIvania. Affirmed.
Whites exccutriy vs.. the County OF Surry.
Frou Circuit Cour, OF Surry. Reversed upon
! The ground that the appeal was Dot taken IN
time, out would have been obtained on It's mer
lis BY divided court.
JUDGES STAPLES AND CHRISTIAN DISSENT.
judge Statues was Of opinion that the con
%s.itution OF Virginia makes z broad di.tlnctlon
between debts contracted during the warm the
pane of the Stat: aud deb's c~)ntract d in the
name and for the benefit Of the several coun-
ties 10 the State. The payment OF the former
is expressly prohibited, without reservation or
qualification, no matter for what purpose the
debt was contracted. As to he latter (~eouuty
debts) the constitutional prohibition ou!y ap-
plies when the debt was created for aiding the
Confederate cause. Whatever may be the
policy or justice Of this prohibition however
be uigtt disappro4e of it, or the language in
which it is expressed, it is the suprcme organic
law Of tie laud, aud must be obeycd. Wheo,
therefore, il appears that q debt contracted by
a cruuty during the War was contracted tr the
purpose of aiding the struggle, the payment is
expressly prohibited by the constitution, AID
creates DO binding obligation. Ont he contrary,
if il appears that the debt is OF such "a charac.
ter as mIIht have been contracted IN q time OF
peace-if it appertalacd to the ordinary police
regulations of a county-iu other words, if it
appears that the debt was net created for the
purpose of aiding 10 the prosecution Of tie
war, aid is in other respects valid, such a debt
is a valid contract, and must be paid. 10 this
view j Judge Christian concurred. Judge Sta
pies said that hereafter be would write out his
views in full.
1t will thus be perceived that all the judges
concur in the opinion that debt created by
"a c4uuty or corporation during the war, 10 aid
Of the Coufederacy, is within the constitutional
Inhibition, aud does not constitute a valid obli-
CATION. Judges Moncure aud Anderson are OF
opinion that none of the debrs created by the
%couoties during The war can be paid, or coDsti-
tute binding obligations. Judges Christian
and Staples are of o@pipion that unl, s. the pay
ment OF the debt is prohibited by the express
terms Of the constitution it Is binding, and
ought to be paid, it valid in other respects.
FowLE SNOwDEN u 20. VS. II ALEXANDRIA
AND WASHINGTON RAILROAD COMPANY.
This was an Ipeal from a decree Of the Cir
cult Court Of Alexandria, which decreed that
the lien Of the city Of Washington upon the
property Of the Alexandria and Washington
Railroad Company was prior aud paramount to
that OF |. Lewis Kinser. The C ,urt holds that
Klnser had lull notice of the prior lien, aud
that FowIe aud Snowdeu had constructive no.
tice. The court says: 1.-THE court is therefore
of opinion that there was 10 error 10 the de-
cree of said Circuit Court declaring that the
deed 10 the Bradley trustees for city Of Wash
iDgtoni created a lien 10 favor of the city of
Washington upon ali the works and property
of the Alexandria aud Washington Railroad
Company, having priority to the lien created
in favor of the appellants by the deed to Kin-
SER" Opinion delivered by Judge Christ 40.
MARYLAND Fisheries The following pc
titiln 10 tie Legislature ia Ia circulation in sew.