Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-02-07
EXACTNESS REQUIRED.
THELAWNUST BE FOLLOWED.
80 the Supreme Csurs says In a Coupon
Csse. in mnasr OF Procedure, and Where
the Amsunt was Over $500.

tne Ameunt was Over $500.
On Thursday IN the Supreme Court,
in the case Of Dunnington, treasurer,
rs. Ford, Judge Lacy delivered the
opinion, as follows:
This case is brought to this Court
under the act Of the General Assem-
bly, of March l2, 1884, giving ap-
peals to this Court as of right to
the Commonwealth in all cases arising
under the acts of January l4th and
January 20. 1882, entitled respec-
lively an act to provide for the more
efficient collection OF the revenue, &c.
The amount involved in this contro-
versy is s526.05.
This suit is brought under the pro-
visions of the act of January 26, 1882,
as amended by the act of March 13.
1884.
For reasons commencing themselves
TO the legislative mind the proceedings
authorized by the said acts were pro-
vided by the Legislature for the
benefit Of all creditors holding gen.
uine coupons detached from genuine
bonds of the State, which were re-
ceivable for taxes due the State, and
for the protection Of the State against
claims of the holders Of alleged fraudu-
lent coupons.
The State can be sued only by her
consent, and when remedy by suit
against the State. or any of the officers
of the State, is provided. those credit
ors who seek to avail themselves of its
benefits must be content to follow its
provisions with exact Strictness. There
IS no authority to sue the State except
as provided by the law. and it is the
duty Of the courts to see to it that the
legislative will is not disregarded. and
that when proceedings are prescribed
by the act they be followed according
TO its terms.
1t would be difficult to draw line
which would mark the distinction be-
tween material and immaterial depart
ures from the prescribed methods, and
it should not be presumed that any pre-
scriptiOn was made which was not re-
garded as essential by the Legis-
lature. The Legislature has provided
in the act in question giving
this remedy that the suit con-
templatcd by this act shall be com
menced by petition filed at rules, upon
which summons shall be issued to the
collecting officer; that the suit shall be
regularly matured like other actions at
law. and the coupons rendered shall be
filed with the petition.
This proceeding was not followed in
this case. The suit was not commenced
by petition filed at rules. but by sum
mons sued out Of the clerks office, and
the petition was afterwards filed.
1t is no answer to this objection to
say that one way was as good as
the other, or that the form adopted to
commence the proceedings was sub
stantial compliance with the law, or
more convenient to the suitOr.
Such an apology would not avail if
an action Of ejectment should be so
brought. or an action Of unlawful entry
and det,ncr should be brought by a
summons to answer complaint
TO be filed at rules. 1t ayails
nothing in This case. The suit is
not brought as required by law;
there is 10 lawful warrant for the suit
as brought, and, being instituted with
out lawful authority. it should have
been dismissed by the Corporation
Court and the said court erred in
ovcrruling the motion Of the defendant |
to that end. And the Judgment of the
said Corporation Court must be re-
'ersed and annulled. and the petition Of !
ihe plaintiff be dismissed.