The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1878-01-24

NlSO. Stl Ol.ClDuStlce MdISIldiI, St1licI-
ally intended to restrain the enacting clause,
and to except something which would other
wise have been it, or in some manner to
modify the cnacting clause . The provisoto
to Section |. Article IL, contains six dis
tinct clauses. each OF which is plainly an
exception to, or limitation or qualification
of. something contained in the body of the
exception. The enacting clause confers
powers or grants the right to claim exemp-
ton from levy, &C., on any execution, or
der, or other process Issued on any demand
for uay debt heretofore orr hereafter con-
traced. The provso declares that such ex-
empton shall not extend to any demand in
the six cases enumerated, the fourth of
which is ''for awful claim for any taxes,
levies, or assessments accruing after June /,
1866" This clause excerpts from the opera
ton OF the general grant lawful claim for
any taxes. This exception, by its very
terms, Includes the Commonwealth, and
therefore necessarily implies that under the
words ''any demand for any debit in the
enacting part of the section, it was intended
to embrace the Commonwealth, as we'll as
her citizens, otherwise there would have
been no necessity for The exception so far
as the Commonwealth is concerned. The
Attorney General argued chat taxes as
scssed retained the character of taxes until
paid into the treasury--that they were no
less taxes in the hands OF the tax collector
/ than they Were in the hands of the tax.
payer, and that this Judgment against the
collector and his sureties was claim for
taxes wi hin the meaning of the fourth sec
ton. The court was not prepared to say
that the argument was not sound one.
The demand Of the State was for the amount
| of taxes paid into the officers hands. Such
is the character OF the judgment rem
dered in the court below. Why then is not
this Judgment ga lawful claim for taxes ~
If, however, the claim is not for taxes
within the operation OF the 4th section,
still the Sd exception excludes the right
to claim the exemption against sny de-
mand for liabilities incurred by pub
lie officer" The phrase liabilities incurred
by public oficer'' refers to the demand
and not to the delinquent. The demand is
not described as demand against the Off
Ger, but it is any demand for liabilities in
cured" and therefore embraces a demand
against any and all persons who Share the
liabilities. AS soon as there is breach in
the condition of the officers bond he and his
sureties, by one and the same act. become
liable to tie party injured. The liability in
cnrred by the officer is at the time incurred
by the surety. This general principle APP
plies to all thu classes mentioned in the eX-
cepGion. The exclusion established by this
clause, and all the clauses of the proyiso are
not intended to punish the parties excluded,
but to secure a benefit to others who might
otherw Use be injured.
1t was argued by the counsel for the ap.
pellees, that the construction contended for
by then had received legislative sanction
in the act February End, 1875, which re-
quires waiver of the Homestead Exemp-
ton in the bonds of officers and fiducaries
The Court said that it is sufficient answer
to this to say, that there had been and still [!
is, conflict Of opinion as to the proper con-
struction to be given to the clause authoriz-
ing the waiver; and it was therefore deem
ed wise and prudent by the &c neral Assem-
bly,, and out of abundant caution, if for no
other reaso n, that the waiver should be pro-
vided for. It could do no harm, and in GER
tain contingencies might prevent much mis-
chief.
- The Court was I'm animously of opinion
that the sureties of Preston r. Ford, the ap-
pellees in this case, were not entitled to
their homestead exemption against the judy
m ent OF the Commonwealth, and that the
Circuit Court OF Charlotte county erred in
its decree. holding that they were so entitled
and that the said decree be reversed and
annullcd.