Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-03-16
THE CONTRACT VOID.
SUPREME COURT so DECLARES, saw.
ING THE STATE OVER 81 100000.
Coupon observation-disclosures Against
the Strcet-Car Company.

The opinion delivered in the Supreme
Court OF Appeals yesterday by Judge
Richardson in the case Of the Common
wealth VS.. Mccullough. from the Cir
cult Court OF Norfolk city. is OF decided
interest to the legal fraternity. ana OF
great importance TO the State.
II is believed that It will finally end all
litigation growing out of the fundhs-oh'
contract 10 receive coupons In payment Oh
taxes and make the recent settlement OF
the public debt complete.
II will be remembered that the contract
endorsed on The coupon. and declared valid
and binding on the Stale In the case OF
Anioni vs. Wright, decided In n'-' pro
vidcd that II should be receivable at ana
after maturity for all debts dues ana ue-
mands due the State"
COUPONS USED FREELY.
This led 10 the free use OF coupons IN
the payment OF taxes, and the state was
driven TO desperate straits 10 secure
enough money TO run the government In
1854. as one means Of relief. the Legisla-
ture specially prohibited the payment OF
school taxes and liquor licenses In cou-
pons. This law was vigorously assaulted
in the courts as contrary to the sweep
ing decision in .intoni vs. Wright. but the
Court OF Appeals and the Supreme Court
of the United States n the
Vashon and Childrey cases. hell that
in so far as the coupon contract
made coupons receivable for schoo, taxes
and LIQUOR licenses IL was unconsu'u-
tional and void. These decisions were
made in 1859, and undoubtedly had an
irnportant bearing in bringing about the
Olcott settlement But II soon became
evident that a small part of the creditors
holding bonds with tax-receivable coupons
attached, say 81, 325. coo. determined not TO
accept the settlement, but TO stay on tho
outside. and force their coupons into the
Treasury for taxes other than school taxes
and liquor licenses.
A NEW QUESTION RAISED.
In the mean time the counsel for the
Sinking-Eund Commissioners, In connec-
ton with the Attorney General. raised
new question as to the validity OF the
coupon contract--vz.. that inasmuch as
the courts had decided that that contract
Sas illegal in part, it was wholly impera-
tive on the well-known principle that
contract having an Illegal consideration III
pnrt was illegal and void in whole; III
other words, that vice or illegality BEING
INCORPORATED in the contract rendered the
whole void.
The Supreme Court Of Appeals on yes
terday by tha concurrence of four judges
for 10 one against, sustained this view
The practical result is to cut OF an an
pual crop OF s73, 800 of coupons for the next
twelve wears that would be forced into the
treasury, besides about $l,0o0.oO OF ma
tured coupons outstanding. According 10
a statement made by Second Auditor Ky
land the decision will save TO the STATE
81. 1872. provided these bonds ana coupons
are now funded, as they certainly VIII NC
in his opinion. ~
The State was represented by the Attor-
ney-General and Hon. Henry X. Pollard
and the coupon-holders by Messrs. MauIy
& Maury. The decision, from which Only
Judge Lewis dissented. applies 10 d mum
her OF cases that went up with ana were
argued at the same time that the McCui-
Tough case was. This was simply the hrst
one on the list.
Gets So, 900 Damages.
Another important case decided ID! inc
Court was that of Charles NJ Lansnorhe
oRainst the Richmond Railway anu Ere
TIC Cxnpany, n suit in which much IN
tarest mad centred. The opinion Is quite
an exhaustive one and deals with several
unique points in law. The case was an
action for damages to the piaihtih ny
belng thrown from car OF the delehuah'
through alleged negligence OF the driver,
u.harsnv the plaintiff has been rendered
a cripple. The damages were placed AT
so5 an The defendant claimed that the
IA Richmond
u,av COMPANY. and not the Richmond
CITY Railway Company, or its successor
the Richmond Railway and Electric Com
many. and that by virtue or sale maue
OF the franchises and property OF the
Richmond Railway Company, under
second and third mortgage to the delehu-
ants prior to the institution OF THIS SUIT
and the adoption by the purchasers OF a
new name under the provisions OF chapter
CT of the Code of 1919, they (the pur-
chasers) acquired the property ana IRAN
chises of the Richmond Railway Com
pany free from all liabilities, except a
first mortgage, which was assuiieu ny
the purchasers
The Court holds that under the act
of the LEGISLATURE of March 20. 1850. which
authorized the city of Richmond to incor-
porate street railways such corporations
SO incorporated were by the terms or the
act not subject TO the provisions of chap
ter 81 OF the Code of 1S4s. Therefore. the
purchasers in acting under that chapter
failed to create new corporation, but
they, being the owners OF the old cor
poration, applied to the city and obtained
an extension OF its charter, under which
they are still operating the road. and
this act of theirs results as a revivor OF
the Richmond Railway Company. and Tor
IN. 40 "a
is liable for Its debts.
Another important question the Court
decided was that the sale Of all the works
and property Of a corporation contem-
plated by chapter 81 Of the Code or le4s'
which entitled purchaser to declare
itself a new corporation, intends sale
of all such works and property, ard not
q sale Of a mere equity OF redemption.
NATURE OF THE ACC DENT,
The accident In which young LanGhorne
was injured occurred year or so a6o
when the lad was aiighting from Broad
street car. 1t is said that just as Lang
horne stepped from the platform the
driver whipped up his mul IS. causing the
boy to he thrown. In the fall his spinal
column was injured. and ne was otn .rwise
crippled. Since then spinal and hip dis.
will probably be an invalid the balonce OF
his life.
The Other Cases.
The other cases In which opinions were
rendered yesterday were as follows:
Walkers administrator IS. Lewis. from
the Circuit Court Of Pittsylvsnia county.
Affirmed
Morton VIZ. Dillon. from Circuit Court OF
Prince Edward county Affirmed
Whitelaw VS.. Sims. from Gre iii Court
OF Orange. Reversed.
City OF Roanoke vs.. Harrison, from
Hastings Court Of city of Roanoke Re.
versed.
Daniels VS.. Wharton. from Circuit Court
OF Fauquier county. Affirmed
Michael VS.. Roanoke Macaine-Works
Rehearing denied
Bell VS.. Farmvlle and Powhatan Rail.
road company. Put on privileged docket