Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-05-10
TREASURERS' DUTIES.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN AN
IMPORTANT CASE.
a peeision as to Delinquent Lists-clear
Titlest Laws Required by
the Constitution.

The following opinion, recently rendered
oy the supreme Court Of Appeals Of this
State, deals with the question OF delinquent
TAX lists, and expounds that provision OF the
constitution Of Virginia which declares "no
Jaw shall embrace more than one object.
which shall be expressed IN IL title":
board Of Supervisors OF Eenrico Counfy
rs. McGrtidtr-- Opinion Of me Court bi,
AelciS, r, Nay Q, 1855.
Tbs isa writ OF error to a Judgment OF
the Circuit Court OF Henrico county affirm
ing a judgment Of the County Cour, of aid
county awarding a mandamus TO comneI
The appellants "to certify In the manner nre.
scrlbed by law the supplemental returns OF
delinquent taxes" for the years 1879. 1850.
1881. 1892, and 1883. presented 10 them ON
the 18th OF January, 1885. by the defendant
IN error, William NJ. McGruder, late trea-
surer OF the said county.
Upon the hlinQ OF the petition for the writ
IN the County Court The Board OF SUPER
Vlsors, The appellants here, appeared and
uemurred TO the petition aud also ans wered.
Inc grounds OF defence were these:
r irst. That the petitioner did not allege
and show that the said lists had been duly
sworn 10 and posted. as required by law,
before the same were presented to the board
Second. That the said lists were not made
out as required by law, duly sworn to, and
certified by the proper commissioners OF the
revenue. as was apparent upon the face OF
the netltion. etc.
Third. That for the very years for which
the aforementioned returns were proposed
10 be made the respondents bad duly cert-
ned, at the instance of the petitioner, the
said McGruder, his delinquent returns. by
which act they had exhausted their powers
on that subject.
Fourth. That there was no law by which
amended and supplemental delinquent re.
turns could be made.
Fifth. That the act approved November
., 1884 (Acts 1854. Extra Session, page 124,
under which said returns were proposed TO
he made, was unconstitutional and void !;
and il not, 1t conferred no authority upon
the respondents TO act In the premises, or in
any way provided how such proposed
amended returns could be made. and that 1t
dld not under any circumstances apply to
lists that had been heretofore presented and
rejected; and
Sixth. That apart from the foregoing OBJ
leclions the respondents had, in fact met and
considered the aforesaid returns, and re-
fused TO certify the same; that this action
on their part was final and conclusive, and
could not he reviewed by any court whatever,
ii being the exercise OF the discretion re-
posed in them by law, and not to be con.
trolled by mandamus.
The defence, however, was overrulcd,
and the writ awarded by judgment en-
tered on the 4th day Of February. 1855.
And this judgment being subsequently al
frmed by the said circuit court, the re-
spondent obtained a writ Of error and SUI
perSededS from one Of the judges OF this
court.
We are OF opinion that the judgment Is
erroneous. The powers Of board OF super
yisors OF a county are limited and defined
10y law and cannot be transcended. Their
acts to be valid must, therefore, be founded
upon the authority OF law, either coIsiitu-
tionai or statutory, and beyond the limits OF
their powers they cannot be made to go. IL
l., for the Legislature, not the courts, 10 pre-
scribe those limits, and we concur in the
view expressed 10 the answer OF the appel
lauts to the petition filed In the County Court
that there is no law in Virginia by which a
board Of supervisors may certify amended
and supplemental delinquent returns by a
treasurer