The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-04-15
NEED NOT PAY THE TAX
BEFORE THE CHARTER rs RECORDED
A Decision OF the Supreme Court Aga'ns'
the State of vIrginIa-Betiie Iho""'-
Lewis Case-Other Opinions.

case of tho Combined Saw and Planer ooni-
pany against Henry w. Flournoy, secfo''iy
of the Commonwealth. The corpora'o'' %
the company-John Bowles. George .. Do"oI'
James T. Streeter l.. ID. Stone l.. ~. 80
Tighe. james l.. Fleming. William H. nv
erts. A. S. Willard and Wertie Willoughoy
were granted charter by the Judge VI '"'
Circuit Court Of Alexandris and wheh ~ was
presented TO the Secretary OF the OouinO"'
mouwealth 10 be recorded according 10 TO-
ourement OF the Code OF Virginia, the 3e 'y
rarv refused To receive it on the ground tha'
n certificate that the tax, amounting 10 S%VV'
| mad been paid was not forthcoming :
The company next applied u inc court ~
appeals for writ of mandamus 10 cOnpei tho
| Sacrstarv In record the charter. The com
| many commanded that the act OF tho Leslaih-
! ture Of February ls 1880. requires tax 10 oe
/ maid ia the Commonwealth only on such char-
ters as are granted by the Legislature. Inc
| Secretary of the Commonwealth III MS answer
SAYS that he verify believes that the olhlss'oH
! IN the act which excludes from It's provisions
the charters granted by courts was the result
of mlsadyenture and accident. but not III
tended by the Legislature. Judge faunte-
/ row. who prepared the opinion IN the case,
saws the act OF the Legislature has no effect
as to the charters obtained through courts.
A wELI-szTrLED RULE.
1T il a well settled rule the Judge says,
THAT when any statute is revised, or one ACT
framed from another. some parts being omit
ted, the parts omitted are not revived by con-
struction. but are 10 be considered rs an
nulled 70 hold otherwise would be TO lmpute
to the Legislature gross carelessness or lgnor-
ance which Is altogether lnadmlssiOle.
when "a statute u revised and provision
contained in it is omitted in the new statute
the inference to be drawn from such course
of LEGISLATION would be that a change n the
law was intended 70 be made. II the oms-
sion was by accident it belongs to the Legis-
lature to supply il. Statutes which impose
restrictions upon trade OF common occupa-
ton. or which levy an exlse or tax
upOn them. must be construed
strictly. Statutes levylng duties or taxes
upon subjects or citizens are 10 be construed
most strongly against the Government and
in favor OF their subjects or citizens and
their provisions are not TO be extended by
implication beyond the clear import of the
language used Revenue laws are neither
remedial statutes nor laws founded upon any
permanent public policy. and are not. there
fore, 10 be literally construed. Hence when
ever there Is a just doubt. that doubt should
absolye the tax payer from his burden.
no STRAINED CONSTRUCTIONS.
II do not think that a strained construction
is allowable OF an act which leyies money
from the citizen. The amount of the levy.
the subject OF it and the method of raising II
ought 10 be so plainly pointed out as to avoid
ell danger of oppression by an erroneous IN
depreciation: and where there IS a fair doubt
the citizen should have the advantage of 1t.
IL ia well-settied rule OF law that every
charge upon the subject must be imposed by
clear and unamblguOus language. Acts OF
Parliament which impose duty upon the
public will be critically construed with
reference TO the particular language in
which thew are expressed. When there
is any ambiguity found the construction
must be in favor of the public, because u IS
a general rule that when the public are to be
charged with d burden. the intention OF the
Legislature TO impose that burden must be
explicitly and distinctly shown. In the reye-
nue. laws. where clauses nfictlng pains and
penalties are ambiguOusly or Obscureiy
worded the Interpretation Is ever IN favor
Of the subject. for the plain reason that the
Legislature is ever at hand 70 explain It's own
meaning and 10 express more clearly what
has been obscurely expressed.
COURT CHARTERS.
THE act of February 2S. 1890. has no effect
whatever as 70 charters obtained through the
courts. and according TO the law section llij,
Code Of Virginia two duties are required Of
the Secretary of the Commonwealth, VIZ
Judgment and recOrdation IN his office upon
the certificate OF the clerk OF the court which
has granted the charter and the presentation
OK the charter and the payment OF the proper
and lawful Fee The respondent has refused
e. perform mere ministerial function and
duty imposed by law, and our Judgment Is
that the writ of mandamus shall issue accord
ing TO the petition of the REALTORS. Let the
writ 60"
THE EFFECT.
The effect Of this decision seems 10 be that
"a MT Inv | Lat err
the tax required must be paid before the Sec
rotary can record It, but OnaccOunt OF a cleri-
cal error OF some other mistake in the draft
of the bill the law does not apply 10 charters
secured from the courts. The Secretary Is
compelled 10 record sucn upon the certificate
of the courts clerks without tax having
been paid the Commonwealth.
Judge FlournOy tod me yesterday that the
decision of the court of appeals came too
late Since the proceedings were instituted
the Legislature amended the act III question
during the session Just closed so as 70 require
a tax TO be paid on all charters granted IN the
State by the legislature as we'll as by the
courts. before they can become effective.
The decision only affects the company IN
question and saves them the expenditure OF
5000. while in the meantime other companies
who were chartered by courts had PAID the
required fees TO the Commonwealth, which
aggregate about $4,000.
BETTE lHONAr-LEhl@.
In the Bette Thomas-Lewis case decision
was not rendered yesterday. but 1t ls almost
certain that the opinion in this suit will be
handed down on next Thursday.
The following other decisions were rem
dered by this court yesterday:
Slaughter against Denmead. From the
Circuit Court OF King William county. Al
frmed. Judge Lewis delivering opinion.
Connecticut Fire Insurance Company against
Tilley. From the Circuit Court Of Norfolk
city Reversed IN part. Judge Lacy deliver
ing opinion.
Justice against city Petersburg. From the
Hastings Court of Petersburg. Affirmed,
Judge Hinon delivering opinion
English against Powell. From Circuit
Court of Culpeper Affirmed Judge Lacy de-
liverng opinion.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
against Briggs Rehearing granted.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
against Galilher Writ OF error aud super
sedeas awarded o. q Judgment rendered by
the Corporation Court OF the city OF Bristol 10
the July term 1891
Miller against Commonwealth. Argued by
Mr. Light for plaiuti IN error and Attorney
General X. Taylor Scott for Commonwealth.
Go to Ashland.
An excellent opportunity il offered for
spending next Monday evening very pleasant
ly rs well rs en- Dying the first excursion OF |
the season from Richmond. This opportunity /