Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-03-17
HE CHARGED USURY.
BANKERS MUST REFUND AL ABOVE
TIE LEGAL RATE or INTEREST.
xrIse WIN Have 10 Rsimbsrse Clark and
Rysn-Ap Opsnien In Favor Of ths
Tsrminal-Other Decisions.

A4< y " "a httt sttsC
the Code Of Virginia which provides that
~Any Judgment creditor who apprehends that
hetz IN danger Of loss by reason OF urusivus
dcaliner on tne part Of his debtor may oxhspst
his ban Of equity, verified BY snidavIi, sga,ns.
the party with whom tho dealings vert had and
compel him to discover, ON oath. all psrgains,
contracts. or shifts relative 20 such neaiinsn
and II ~ appear that more thnn Legal in.oeoss
hss been received The excess above thst rete,or
90 much thereof as may be necessary, snnn %
applied 20 the satisfaction OF the PLAN uns dc-
msnd. Such bin shall be Mod within I'VE years
after the receipt OF the Illegal interes"
The Court held this to be . remeoiai
statute, giving q party O mode OF reneoy
for q wrong when he had none or a oiner-
emit one before. and that the usurer for
feited 10 the Judgment creditor the excess
over and above the legal interest IN
other words. the usury charged 70 the
judgment creditor. irrespective OF wy
state OF accounts between the usur er ana
the judgment debtor, the Judgment
debtor, in the opinion OF the Court nn.
der the section above referred 10, nor
being a necessary party to the jud gment
creditors suit.
THE COURT QUOTES A PRINCIPLE
The Court says In this opinion; .x.
"Tho reason OF the law-that rs, tne inuuse
which led 20 the making OF It's one OF zee most
cn,sas, ,na,ns of csta bliahing the true sense.
"A soon as We know the reason when alone nas
Determined the viii OF him who speaNs wo
0uvIt To tntofprcL BS NOANo NV
manner suitable 10 that reason. III ~ q Wen.
estnbiished American rule OF construction she.
A il not pormiued 10 interpre, tnst wn,cn .
DO need OF Interpretation. When an IT, ~
r,resseS In clear and precise t~errps-wnen the
sense Is manifest and leads 10 noihing aosoIu--
there can be no reason not 10 auop' "
which 4, naturally presents
This was a case of FIRST impression. and
will be read with n great deal OF interest,"
bv fbe legal profession. II was argue ov
Afr. " ". Henry and John Randolph
'Tucke- Jr.. of the firm of Tucker d IN
cram OF this city. for the plaintiffs IN
error. and by Judge Waller *. staples. OF
the irm OF Staples d Munford. OF Ricnc
nond' and MIR. A. H.. Burroughs. of
Iynchburg. for the defendants in error:
.Jndce Lacy delivered the opinion OF the
conrt' JudcesF auutleroy n Hinton con-
curing and Judges Lewis and Richardson
dissenting.
ALLEGING UsuRIoU5 DEALISGs.
RYAN and Clark filed their bills in the
Circuit Court of Lynchburg under the
statute above referred to agains, IA
Krse. a L%ynchburg banker. aieg.ng
with their Judgment debtors, and praying
that the usury charged by krlse should DO
apnlied on their judgments. The usurlous
dealings were not denied. but mise
claimed that, Notwithstanding the usnry.
the Judgment debtors still owed MN
balance on q Stateultul VI tnohi
between Krise and said debtors.
This was a fact, and the Circuit Court
of Jvnchburg dismissed the bills OK the
plaintiffs in error, applying the usury re-
ceiycd by Krise from the judgment 1eot-
ors on the debts Of said debtors TO hrlse;
hut not TO the satisfaction Oh the pia'IsIns
(the Judgment credltors) demands. FROM
these DEGREES appeals were taken.
This ribupai reversed the decisions OF the
Circuit Court and ordered that the appel
lee. Krise, pay the appellants costs, anu re-
manded the causes to the circuit Court
with instructions to further proceed In tue
causes in order TO O final decree In ACCORD,
ance with the opinion OF the Court anu
tba views therein expressed.
The amount of usurious interest charged
is approximately $1,000 or $1,000.
Ia Favor OF the Company.
The Supreme Court also rem dered an
op,nion i'm the case of Whiting and others
against the town of West Point and tho
Richmond and West Point Terminal Com
pany. This was q proceeding growing. out
of q maudamus case of Whitney and others
against the town of West Point ana the
Terminal Company, heretofore decided by
ths Supreme Court, and which decision at
the time of its rendition excited great IN
terest IN Virginia, because by IT tAe ordl-
napcss passed by various town ouncll
exemptlng from municipal taxation any
species of property ~ their midst were de-
clared unconstitutional.
Upon the delivery OF tins OPINION the
Town Council of West Point assessed the
property of the Terminal Company for the
wear 1892, in which year the opinion was
rendered, and the town taxesicr that year,
amounting to $3, 966, were paid by the
company,
AGENERAL LEVY WANTED.
II, was then insisted by o number OF citi-
zeps of West Point that the property OF the
Terminal Company. the York-River Rail-
way Company, the Electric-Light Compa:
nv, the Masonic Hall. and, IN fact. all
property of the town, was liable TO taxa
ton during all the preceding years IN
which none had been paid in consequence
of the ordinance passed exempting them.
Counsel for the railway company combat
ted the right OF the town TO levy and col
lect taxes for these anterior years. but IN
order to avoid litigation the sum OF $40.
600 was paid the town in settlement or all
such claims against either the Terminal
Company or the York-River Railway Com
10 this settlement objection was made
by certain of the citizens n proceedings
were instituted to compel the. Council OK
West Point to levy taxes upon tie property
OF the Terminal Company Tor the wear
1891 and years prior thereto, 1t being IN
sisted that the Council had no more
right to accept the $4,000 IN commute
tion of the amount due for unpaid taxes
than 1t had TO pass the original ordinance
exenpting the company. IL was claimed
that the amount for which the lermlnai
Company was thus liable was S4S.000 In
round numbers.
REFUSED TO GRANT TUE ORDER.
The court by its decision refused to
grant the order asked for. decided that the
Council had obeyed its mandate by making
a levy tor the year in which their decision
was rendered, and further declaring that
rho town Council under its charter had,
further, no authority under the law to
levy taxes upon property which had not
been assessed. there having IN this case
been no assessment by the town authori-
ties of the property of this company during
the years alluded to. This decision does
not pass upon the question OF requiring
the town of West Point TO pay back TO the
railroad company the sun OF $4,000 PAID
on back taxes.
Hon. Henry r. Pollard was counsel for
the citizens of West Point, Herbert l.:
Lewis, ESQ.,. represented the Council OF
that place, and Hon. Il. b. Muntord was
the attorney for the Terminal Company.
win Get 81. 3 ID ,maces.
The only other case of material impor-
lance 10 the public decided IN the Su-
preme Court yesterday was that OF the
Richmond and Danville Railroad Com
pany against Brown. This was a suit for
damages by X. III. Brown, a white brake
man. who was quite badly mashed and
injured between two moving cars q.
Chatham, Plttsylvania county, some
months ago. The Circuit Court gave
judgment against the company for $2.650,
and the railroad company took an appeal
from this decisioD. The opinion of the
supreme Court aAirms the judgment OF
the Circuit Court Of Pitts ylvania.
Other sapreme-Court Cases
Turner's administrator against Thorn, trustee.
From Corporation Court OF Norfolk Reversed,
Judge Hinton delivering opinion.
Norfolk aud Western Railroad Company
againss 0slieher. Keboarlng denied.
Mitchell against Commonwealth. Further
argued by William NJ. Flanagan, Esq, for
plaintiff IN error and Major n. Taylor scott for
Commonwealth and submitted.
Lewis against Commonwealth two cases).
Argued ty j. W. q. Blackstone. ESQ, for plain.
tn In error ard Major X. Taylor Scott for de-
fendan; IN error aud submitted.
Forbes against tho Commonwealth. Aorriss
against Jones, trustee. and Marshall against
l..a