The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-04-20


day, in the case Of the new Board Of Vis-
itors Of the Medical College applying for a
mdndQmuS TO compel the old Board to sur
render them possession of the property,
Judge Il. W. Lacy delivered the unani-
nous opinion. II held that though there
might be other remedies. the writ Of man
ddmuS was proper in case like this; that
the college property belongs to the State Of
Virginia, and that though the Governor is
authorized to fill vacancies which may oc-
cur in the Board, the right to remove the
Board is vested only in the Legislature.
The Opinion.
The opinion is rs follows:
This is petition for a mdnddmus Oh the
part of the petitioners, who were appointed
by the Governor OF Virginia on the 22d Of
September, 1882, rs a Board OF Visitors Of
the Medical College OF Virginia, from this
court to command the respondents herein,
who constituted the Board OF Visitors Of the
said college before the 22d day Of Septem-
ber, 1882. TO deliver TO the petitioners the
possession Of the SAID college.
The petition sets forth the appointment
OF the petitioners by the Governor, and
claims the right OF the said petitioners to
have possession Of the said college by rea-
son OF the said appointment. The respond
entS reply that they are the visitors OF the
/ said college, holding their Office under the
charter OF the college, and deny the right
OF the Governor 10 remove them from their
SAID Office OF visitor.
The first question raised in this case Is
as TO the nature Of the proceedings. The
respondents say that mdnddmnS will not
lie in this ease: that they can be removed
from Office only by Q'tO scGyTdnfO, and that
they cannot be so removed 10y mdnddmuS.
This question has been so often and so re-
Gently settled in this court that it cannot
be now regarded rs an open question.
without entering at length into dis
cussiOn OF the nature and origin Of the
writ OF InGnddmUS, it is sufficient TO say
it Is an extraordinary remedy, in cases
where the usual and ordinary modes Of
proceedings are powerlcss TO afford rene
dies TO the party aggricved, and when
without Its aid there would be 4 failure OF
Justice.
Wherever there is 4 right to exercise an
office, perform a service, or exercise fran
chlSe. more especially If it be a matter OF
public concern. and a person is dis
possessed OF such right, and has no
other specific adequate remedy, then
the court ought to assist by mcndGmuS,
upon reasons OF justice, as expressed
by the writ, and upon reasons OF public
policy to preserve the peace. good order,
and good government. II ought to be used
on all occasions where the law has eStab-
lished no specific remedy. Whatever may
be the rule elsewhere, il may be safely laid
down rs the doctrine OF this court that
nldnddmuS is the true specific remedy for
wrongful deprivation OF an office. What
other specific adequate remedy have these
petitioners, il they are clearly entitled to
tins office: Ii. rs suggested, quo lrdrTQntO
should be adopted, and the petitioners
should succeed there, they would not
thereby be put in possession Of what they
seek. but might still be put to the necessity
Of mandamaS for relief. They might sue
ceed by QaO lrdrTdntO i'm removing their
adyersaries from the Office and yet need the
mdndQmuS TO put them in possession. No
proceeding that will give them less than
they ask can be said to afford them a spe-
clfc and adequate remedy, il they are enti-
tied 10 what they seek.
Under the QUO rdTTGntO information
Judgment might remove the occupants, but
would not install the claimants.
They might still find it necessary 10 ask
other process against some other person or
officer who might deem i( his or their duty
to keep them out.
We think that, although there may be
other adequate remedies. there j. no other 50
complete a. mdnddmuS. See opinion OF sta
pies, Judge, in johnson rs. Mann, Judge,
Nc., lately decided in this court, and not
vet reported; and the opinion OF Judge
Richardson in the same case on 2 rehcaring
i'm this court. and authorities there cited.
1t i earnestly contended by respondents
that this college is a private corporation,
and not under the control OF the Governor
or any other public authority; and this j.
the second question upon which we are 10
pass.
In 1854 the Medical College was incOr-
porated, with Board OF Visitors, nine
teen in number, and the said visitors were
named in the charter.
BY the 10th section it was provided that
d" whenever any vacancy shall occur in the
said Board by reason Of death, reSigna-
ton. or otherwise, then the Governor shall
fill the same, selecting the visitors so aD-
pointed from each Of the grand divisions
OF the State.v The Board OF Visitors were
required TO make m annual report TO the
Second Auditor, such rs is required by the
18th section OF the SD chapter OF the Code
In the charter the Legislature reserved
the right. at its pleasure, to modify, alter,
or repeal the charter provided for on ac-
cepfance by the then existing faculty, and
disclaimed any intention by the Legisa-
turc TO reflect on the trustees OF Hampden-
Sidney College or the faculty Of the mcdi-
cal school in Richmond.
Before the passage OF this act there was
medical school in Richmond. which was
under the patronage Of Hampden-Sidney
College. Discussions between the faculty Of
the medical school and the trustees Of
Hampden-Sidney College led TO the act
OF incorporation seen above. In 1860 the
Legislature appropriated $4,000 to this
college upon the condition that the college
authorities should execute and record a
deed conveying all the property OF the col
lege to the literary fund Of the State; this
deed TO be drawn by the Attorney General
and approved by the Governor. This deed
was executed, and by another act OF Feb
ruary 2G. 1866, the Legislature OF the State
appropriated $500 10 the said college,
which has been annually appropriated by
the Legislature ever since. This brief
history OF this college shows that
once in its history il was pri-
vate school; that upon its solicitation.
and by the consent OF its authorities.
il was incorporated, aud the succession OF
its Board of Visitors placed under public
control; that by subsequent solicitation and
consent it parted with all its property to
the State, and executed and delivered q
deed 10 the State for the same. and received
from the State $50, 900; that subsequently
it has solicited and received 81, 900 annual
" from the State, and has undertaken to
submit an annual report on the part both
Of its Board Of Visitors and Of its faculty to
public officer OF the State.