The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-30
THE TAG-TAX ILLEGAL.
DECISION OF TIE SUPREME COURT
AGAINST DIR. BLANTON.
Opinion by Judge Fauntleroy, sus'
tainfng. Substantially, tho PO-
sitiOn OF the Fertilizer
s Companies.

In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day the opinion In the tag-tax case was de-
livered by Judge L. L. Fauntleroy, rs fol-
lows:
Blanton, Commissioner, Us. Southern Fer
tttizing Company and ais. Opinion Of
the Court-FduntleroH j.
This is an appeal from two orders or de-
crees OF the Chanccry Court OF the. city OF
Richmond in the case of The Southern
Fertilizing Company, corporation char
tered under the laws OF the State OF Vir-
giuia; James w. Allison and Il. B. Addi-
son, partners doing business under the firm
and style Of Allison & Addison, and A.
s. Lee, manufacturers and sellers OF ferti-
lizers, suing for themselves and in behalf
of all other manufacturers and sellers OF
fertilizers who may unite with them upon
the terms OF sharing the costs and benefits
OF this suit, against James NJ. Blanton,
Commissioner OF Agriculture Of the State
OF Virginia, rendered, the one order, on
the 4th day Of August, 1882, and the final
decree, on the 7th day OF December, 1882.
A TRANSCRIPT
OF the record OF the case shows: That
on the 4th day OF August, 1882, the
said complainants 0he appellees here
exhibited, in the Chancery Court OF the
city of Richmond, their bill OF injunction
against the SAID James NJ. Blanton, Com
missioner OF Agriculture Of the State OF
Virginia, to enjoin and restrain him, the
said Commissioner OF Agriculture, from
enforcing certain rules of his Office, pre-
scribed and promulgated by HIM, requiring
nff caiH nj hi "a :
OF all other manufacturers and sellers OF
fertilizers in the State OF Virginia, as a con-
dition precedent TO the sale of their goods
in tins State, the purchase from him OF tags,
at the rate Of five cents for each tag, to he
appended to packages of two hundred
pounds, or less, of all fertilizers to be sold.
On the - OF August, 1882,
AN INJUNCTION
was granted. in accordance with the prayer
OF the said bill, "enioining and restraining
the said j. NJ. Blanton, Commissioner OF
Agriculture, from eXacting, OF attempting
to exact. the charge for tags as required by
rule "No. 9" of the rules and regula-
tionS promulgated by the said Com
missioner OF Agriculture to take effect
op the 1st OF July, 1882, and men,
llOUeu III tue sdlu DllI, anu dISo
from attempting in any way to enforce
said rule until the further order OF the
court"
At the September rules a demurrer and
an answer TO the bill were filed in behalf OF
the defendant che appellant here) by the
General OF the State. Testimony
was taken to establish the allegations made
in the bill, and the cause, having been fully
matured for hearing on the merits, came
on upon the motion OF the compliments
for the perpetuation OF the Injunction,
heretofore granted, on the 1th day OF De-
cember. 1882, and was fully heard upon the
demurrer, the bill and answer, and deposi-
tions filed; whereupon the court overIuled
the demurrer and pcpetuatcd the iniunc-
ton restraining the said j. NJ. Blanton,
Commissioner Of Agriculture, from exact
ing, or attempting to exact, the charge for
tags as required by rule "No. =" OF the
rules and regulations promulgated by sand
Commissioner OF Agriculture, to take ef.
feet on the 1st July, 1882, and mentioned
in said bill; and also from attempting in
any way to enforce sald rule.
From these DEGREES
AN APPEAL
and SuperSedeGS were allowed by one o1
the Judges OF this court. The appellant
in his petition for appeal, makes three as
signments Of error-viZ.:
1st. "The demurrer to the said bill
should have been sustained, a. il is cieal
that the said Chancery Court OF Richmond
has no Jurisdiction Of the case. The State
can only be sued, by her consent. and in
such tribunals as she may choose. The
Department of Agriculture is n regular
State Bureau. authorized by the Con
stitution of Virginia and by the Ac
OF Assembly 1867, page 240. b.
the Code OF 1873, chapter A, section
I. page All, it will be found that th'
| Circuit Court OF Richmond is selected a.
the forum for all suits against the State ol
her public boards, bureaus, and depart
mcnts." And
I'd. "The use Of the names OF the South
ern Fertilizing Company, Of Virginia, o
Allison & Addison, and A. 5. Lee as co
ccmplainants, was miSJoinder OF parties
and is one of that class of cases where SeU
erdl suits should have been brought"
We think the demurrer was properl!
! oyerruled.
| TBE CIRCUIT COURT OF RICHMOND
has no chancery jurisdiction, except il
suits in which it may be necessary or pro
per to make certain enumerated officers o.
p,Iblc corporations parties defcndant.-S
section 4, chapter 155, page 1912, Code o
Virginia, 1873. Ragland Us. BroadnaX, 9
Graft. 4O1. The Commissioner OF Agri
culture is not one OF the enumerated off
GERS or corporations: and therefore Is no
within the exception. The mode of suinl
odopted in this case, and the general iuris
diction OF a court of equity in such cas-
as this. are well settled by numerous au
thorities. See Bull rs. Read, l3 Graft.
1851: Goddin as. Crump, s Leigh, 120
Johnson, &C., Us. Drummond, &C., 2
Graft, 419-42s; Redd, &C., Us. Supervi
sors OF Henry County, 81 Graft, G97-69S
High on Iniunctions, section 796. Tha
equity has jurisdiction to enioin illega
acts OF an officer attempted to be done
colore Oficii, [see High on Iniunctions, sec
ton 796 I and to enion action under an In
valid requirement, see Goddln Us. CrumI
Leigh, 100; Bull Us. Read, Is Graft, rs
Eyre Us. Jacob, IA Graft, 423; Redd Us
Supe rvfsors, &C., 81 Graft, 697-S; COole
on Taxation, $40, Note /.
That Joint suit may be brought by tw
or more parties OF class. for the benefit {
all similarly affected (as charged in th
bin, [see the same Virginia Cases, and pal
ticrllarly Bull Us. Read, 13 Graft, So, tn
, leading easel; and that such JOINT su
must be brought by persons similarly a
fected, to avoid multiplicity OF suits an
irreparable damage. See McClung u
, Livesay, 7th West Virginia, 329-333; Woo
Us. Draper, "a Barb, 1877; S. c., Abb
Pr. Rep. 322; Kerr on Injunctions, 19s
, 200.
That suit against an officer Of the Sta
is not necessarily
III SUIT AGAINST ;.n.
! the State [see Osborne Us. Bank Of Unite
States, 9th Wheaton,, S16; Davis Us. Ora