Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-03-16
Court of Appeals Yesterday.


An opinion W as banded down yester.
day in the Court OF Appeals OF great
Importance TO the Commonwealth and
its creditors. The decision in brief is
that the entire coupon contract is void.
The case in point is that of the Com
monwealth vs.. Mccullough. from the
Corporation Court of Norfolk. This
case (and several others of the same
kind was argued by Attorney General
Scott and Hon. H. r. Pollard for the
Commonwealth and the question decid-
ed by the Court of Appeals yesterday
was raised for the first time by Messrs.
Scott and Pollard in the Norfolk case.
The decision Of the court is based upon
the decision of the United States Su-
preme Court in tie case Of Eashon VS..
Greenhow. Under the coupon con-
tract Funding bill Of II and the Nc
Cullough bilD it was provided that
coupons should be received for all taxes
due the Commonwealth. But in the
Vashon case, the Supreme Court of the
United STATES decided that the State
was not bound to receive coupons for
school taxes and the Virginia Court of
Appeals now holds that, as the coupon
contract is illegal in one particular, it
is illegal as whole and therefore void.
The decision involves SS50,000 of out
standing coupons which were not
funded under the Olcott settlement. 1t
was the purpose of the holders of these
coupons to tender them for taxes and
to compel the State to receive them, or
compromise with the holders. but this
decision forces them to accept the Oh
colt settlement or nothing.
Judge Lewis dissented from the deci-
sion of the court as being wrong both
in law and morals.
In the case of Chas. NJ. Langhorne
vs.. the Richmond Railway and Electric
Co., the Court of Appeals reverses the
judgment of the Circuit Court Of the
city of Richmond, and remands the case
for new trial of the merits. This is
an action for damages to the plaintiff
by being thrown from car of the de-
fendant through alleged negligence Of
the driver, whereby the plaintiff has
been rendered cripple. The damages
were laid at $4,000. The defendant
claimed that the party responsible was
the Richmond Railway Company and
not the Richmond City Railway Com
pany or its successor the Richmond
Railway and Electric Company, and
that by virtue of sale made Of the
franchise and property of the Richmond
Railway Company, under q second and
third mortgage to the defendants prior
to the institution of this suit, and the
adoption by the purchasers of new
name under the provisions of chapter
81, of the code of 1S49, they (the pur-
acquired the property and
franchises of the Richmond Railway
Company free from all liabilities except
a first mortgage which was assumed by
5he purchasers. The court holds that
luder the act of the Legislature of
March 20, 1860, which authorized the
city of Richmond to incorporate street
railways such corporations so incorpo.
rated were by the terms of the act not
subject to the provisions of chapter
81, Of the code of eighteen hundred and
Therefore the purchasers in
acting under that chapter failed to Gre
lte new corporation, but they, being
.he owners of the old corporation, ap.
piled to the city and obtained an extern
sion of its charter under which they are
still operating the road, and this act of
theirs results as revivor of the Rich
nond Railway Co., and for this reason
!, Il IS Il L.. l,4t.1 IL Fn,
its debts. The court also decides that
The sale of all the works and property of
4 corporation contemplated by chapter
81, of the code of ls49, which entitled q
to declare itself new cor
poration, intends sale of all such
works and property and not sale OF a
mere equity of redemption.
OTHER CASES.
Walkers administrator VS. Lewis,