Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-06
TWO STRIKING CASES.
WHERE coupoxs INVOLVED.
Act OF Assembly Givsns Appeal sF Hisns in
Cases Under $500 Uneesssisasisnai-An
order from judge HuEhes.

Act Of Assembly Givsns Appenf 81 nishs 'n
Csses Under $500 Uncesssisatisnai-An An
order from judge Hughes.
In the Supreme Court Of Appeals
yesterday there were decided Nc
Intssh. trustee, against Bradens, trus-
tee. and thirteen other cases, from
Loudoun county; Dunnington, treasu-
rer. against Hurt 4 Son, and four other
cases, from Lynchburg, and Common
wealth against Consani. They were
dismissed for want Of jurisdiction, Judge
Lacy delhering the opinion; Judges
Fauntleroy and Richardson dissenting
Judge Lewis delivering an opinion con-
curing in the result Of the opinion ol
Judge Lacy. :.
Judge Lacy's opinion in the leading
cases is as follows:
These cases are brought to this court
on appeal from the Circuit Court OF the
county Of Louaoun under the act OF the
General Assembly approved March IL,
1884. entitled an act to give an appeal
as of right to the Commonwealth IN all
cases where suits are instituted under
the act of January IA, 1882, entitled
an act to prevent frauds against the
Commonwealth and the holders OF her
securities in the collection and disburse-
ment of her revenues. The controversy
in these cases involves in each case less
than $500, and the first question to be
decided in this court is upon the motion
to dismiss the appeal in each case Tor
want of jurisdiction in this court.
The Constitution of Virginia provides
that the jurisdiction Of the courts oil
the Commonwealth, and the judges
thereof, except so far as the same is
conferred by the Constitution, shall be
regulated by law. Jurisdiction is con-
ferred upon this court by the act OF
March II. 1884, in all cases under
the act of January IA, 1882, without
regard to the amount involved in the
controversy, and this is within the
power of the Legislature, unless the
power of the Legislature upon this sub
iect is restricted by The Constitution OF
the State.
The Cd section Of Article 6 Of the
Constitution, however, provides that
this court shall not have jurisdiction III
civil cases when the matter in contro-
versy, exclusive Of costs, is less in value
or amount than $500, except in certain
enumerated cases, wherein these cases
are not included.
This section imposes restriction
upon the Legislature in this respect,
and it is not therefore within the
power of the Legislature to 50 regulate
the jurisdiction Of this court, and so
much of the said act as cOnfers this jul
risdiction on this court is in violation
of this section of the Constitution. and
is therefore void.
II is, however, contended that as the
Commonwealth is not expressly men
toned in the section of the Constitution
lust cited. the State is not bound there
by upon well-settled principles.
But the Constitution in this respect
limits the power Of this court. and this
court cannot undertake to review the
Circuit Court decision in these cases
without violating the Constitution in a
provision expressly denying to this
court jurisdiction in the premises.
The Legislature is restricted from
q anting this court such jurisdiction,
and the act therefore confers no juris-
dictiou upon the court. and the Con
stitution not only does not give but ex-
pressly denies such jurisdiction.
1t follows that this court has no law
full authority to review the cases, and
the appeals must be dismissed for want
of jurisdiction. See the case of Barnett
rs. Meredith. 10th Graft, ESQ, where,
in the opinion of Judge Allen. this
question is carefully considered, and
this provision is held to impose re-
striction on the power of the Legisla-
ture. See also the case Of the Common
wealth rs. Moores administrator, lst
Graft, 294-opihion of Judge Baldwin,
saying: The Court is of opinion that
the general rule of law which eXempts
the Commonwealth from the operation
Of the statutes of limitation is applica-
BILE to original controversies, and not to
cases in which the rights Of the parties
have been adjudicated by the judgment,
decree, or sentence of a court OF COM
petent jurisdiction
In such cases the question whether
the merits of the judicial decision can
be reviewed by another tribunal must
be governed by the laws prescribing
and regulating the jurisdiction of the
appellate forum, and it was held to be
the duty of the court to withhold a con-
sideration Of the merits Of the cause.
though no objection was taken by plea
or otherwise, and even though the point
should be expressly waived by consent
of the parties.
We think it is safer to follow the lead
Of these two cases decided in this court
on this subject, and holding ourselves
bound by the express mandate Of the
Constitution. Notwithstanding the ex-
press jurisdiction conferred upon this
court by statute. But it is earnestly
contended here that the question here
is not the amount involved, but the gen.
uineness of the coupons. This is com
pletely answered by the counsel for the
taxpayer, that on suit upon bond
for sum of money less than five hun
dred dollars, jurisdiction could not be
conferred upon this court by the plea
Of non est factiim the amount in con-
troversy would remain the same. as it
does here, and the amount involved is
the amount of the coupons rendered and
refused.
We are of opinion to dismiss the
cases for want of jurisdiction.
A Case OF Far-Reaching Importance.
In the suit of Edward Parsons, the
owner of certain coupons. the following
order has been made:
In the Circuit Court Of tie United
States for The Eastern District Of
!irgiHiQ-Edria Parsons rs. Norton
Narys, Agaiior, &c., SC.
This day came the plaintiff and by
leave of court filed his bill, which