The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-05-18

Wnlcu u3y De gwen Dy law 10 tue clrcuit
courts OF tins State" With all respect to the
legislative department OF the government, ]
think In this II has clearly transcribed It's
powers ; that this provision is plainly In
conflict with the fundamental law Of the
State, and to that extent Is a nutiity. This
being my opinion, then, with reference to
bis provision giving the right Of appeal
from this court TO The Circuit Court. with
the greatest respect for the Circuit Court
OF this city, and the eminent and excellent
Judge OF that court, / must decline TO re.
cognize the right OF that court TO review.
reverse, or affirm the judgments Of
this court. The only power which
| recognize under the Constitution
OF this State, as having this right, is the SUI
preme Court OF Appeals, and this Is the only
one shall ever recognize until the organic
law Is changed, or l am commanded by the
mandate Of the Supreme Court, or a special
Court OF Appeals which may be created
under the Constitution, 10 submit TO the
judgment Of some other tribunal as the SUI
perior OF this. ln the very short time which
have had to investigate this subject have
found but few instances In which legisla-
lures have undertaken 10 give the riyht Of
appeal ~ between courts intended under
| ordinate, and in every case in which it was
done the law was declared to be invalid. AS
was said by the Supreme Court OF Wiscon-
sin in Parrish Us. Marvin, Is Wisconsin,
249, "A review and reversal by one court
OF the judgment OF another coordinate court
would be Il marcel in law. Under such a
practice the parties would go on reviewing
to the end OF time" Sec also Arnoh Us.
Styles. Blackf., 39l; and in Byrd, &C., rs.
Brown, &C., Ark, 7l3, the Supreme Court
OF Arkansas said: "When readjudica-
tion Is demanded IL must be the ad.
judication OF some tribunal other than that
| In which it was previously decided and Su-
perior to 1t, according TO the spirit and de-
sign OF the Constitution, clearly Indicated
10y the organization OF this department" :"
See also e1 parte Anthony, ID, 35S, . Va.
cases, 800; People Us. dpptegdte, ) Cal,
295; Gdatfeid Us. Hudson, 3 Cal, 3S9
Titus Us. Latinaer, 3 Texas, 433. In the
last-named case, the Constitution OF Texa.
conferred on the District Courts and tue
Judges thereof the power 10 .'lSsuc all writs
necessary to enforce their own jurisdiction,
and 10 give them general superintendence
and control over inferior jurisdictions" and
the Legislature undertook to give these
courts appellate jurisdiction, but the Su.
preme Court declared the act unconsttu.
tlOnal and void. See also Wells on the ,Jurls
diction OF Courts, p. "a. II the Legislature
can give the Circuit Court Of this city appel
late jurisdiction from the judgments Of TN
court in this mltter, it eau do so in al
others, and since the Constitution SAYS thi,
court must have "Simildr jurisdiction >
with the Circuit Courts, il must also have
| n n n hA
Courts; and thus he Legislature nigh
by the exercise OF this power keeI
litigants playing battledoOr and smut
tlecock,' appealing between coordinate
courts, aud by this means under
nine and destroy the almost sole iuri sdc
ton OF the supreme appellate tribunal o
the State. am OF opinion that legislation
which tends to this eud is clearly unconStI
tutional, and therefore void. do not thinl
the principle here cOntended for is in con
flict with the cases OF Conan rs. UOddridge
% Graft, aud COlcqn Us. Fulton, 23d Graft
In those cases the Circuit Courts, TO ant
from which the appeal was directed, wert
organized under different constitutions Of
the State, and there was no Limitation on The
jurisdiction OF either court expressed in
either Constitution. ] am duly sensbl,
that the power conferred upon the court,
to annul laws because OF their repugOanc,
to the Federal or State Constitution il
one OF their highest prerogatiyes, shouC
be exercised with great caution, anC
only in plain cases. But when a cast
occurs, which is as plain as | think this IL
a court would shrink from the performanc,
OF one Of its highest duties which failed to
do what it was OF opinion the fundamental
Law OF the State required. With all respec
to the legislative department, this Cour
cannot consent to be thus dereIict.
For these reasons am constrained TO re
fuse TO renew the license OF the applicant
and must also refuse 10 recognize the righ
OF appeal from this TO the Circuit Court un
I'll an compelled to do 80 by the mandlt,
Of the supreme Court OF Appeals OF Vlr
ginia.