The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1894-03-10


have the opportunity of being heard in
defense, both repelling tho allegations
OF TACT, and upon the matters OF law;
ano no sentence OF any curt is entitled
TO the jeast respect in any other court
or elsewhere when i, has been pro-
nounced eX paste and wi: hous opportu-
nifty OF Defence"
The case of Shumate VS.. supervisors
OF Fauquier county, 'S4, Virginia. 574,
does not sustain the contention OF coun.
sci that the doctrine Of res adjudicata
applies 10 this case. That case was
briefly this: a county Judge who had
boon impeached by the legislature for
! nalversation in ONCE afterwards sought
to recover his salary of the county of
tauquier But the court properly held
that the proceedings determining his
right to hold the office involved an ad-
judication of his right to receive the
salary OF that office, and constituted
bar to his right of recovery. Other
gentlemen admit that the doctrine of
res adjudicata does not apply, but say
the principle Of stare docisis does. =,
The case of Gees administrator vs..
Williamson, 81 Amer. Dec, 62s, note,
discusses the subject Of stare decisis.
But in Black, on judgments, sec. 603
(stating an exception to the general
rule that Judgments do not find strang.
ers' }, the doctrine is succinctly stated
thus: According to the doctrine of the
pest cases a title previously passed
upon, although in q suit between dit
terens oarties, will not be examined
and adiudicated in case proceeding
upon the same state of facts and pre-
senting exactly the same question in
the absence of ashowipg that the former
accession was manifestlY erroneous"
~ h0 L. T.
People have right to rely on the sta.
bility of judicial decisions as guide to
them In their business tranaa lions.
But the statement of the rule would
seem to show its inapplicability to the
case in hand.
In Bigelow on Estoppel, page "a, in
discussing the effect OF recitals in a
record. it is said: 1.-The rights of strang-
ers are not affected such persons can
neither be bound by nor take advantage
OF recitals in the record. Indeed even
between parties and prives the recitals
OF Judicial record of another State or
county, or of an inferior domestic court
in respect Of Jurisdiction are but prima
facie evidence; and it has been adjudged
IN New York that the Same is true in
that State of recltals OF jursd icional
facts OF even tho superior domestic
courts" SEQ also on the question OF
Estoppel by matter Of record, Chisman's
admx. VS.. Hartman ct. al, 30 Graft, 404.
IL does not appear whether tho record
of tho case of Haddox VS.. the county of
Clarke, before referred to, recited that
there was or was not due notice OF the
election; and there is nothing in the de-
clsion to justify the conclusion that the
court meant to limit the introduction OF
parol evidence to questions about which
q a mn mt eel n.,I
record was silent. In fact, regard that
case an express authority for the con
tention of counsel for appellant that
when the result OF q local option cleo
t1on is interposed as bar to the right
or citizen to obtain license to sell
liquor, 1T is competent for him to show
that the election WAS illegal and void
The case of Donaldson vs. the State OF
Texas fully sustains that view am
further OF opinion that petition such
as is required by section S5i of the Code
OF Virginia is absolutely essential to
give the Hastings Court. or it's Judge in
vacation, Jurisdiction to issue writ for
the special cleo ton provided for therein.
Inc language of the section is: "When-
ever such of the qualified voters n
OF q city, as constitute one fourth
OF the persons voting at the pre-
ceding regular November election
In such corporation shall,
In term time or vacation, petition
the judge of tho corporation court
for special election in such CORPORA
ton on the question of granting or not
granting liquor lict nse therein; such
court or judge shall, within ten d.ys
after the receipt OF said petition. issue
a writ of election, in which shall DO
nIed the day of holding such election,
directed to tho sergeant OF his corpora
ton " Under powers derived from gen.
eral statutes or from the comm on law,
the corporation court or the Judge IN
vacation has no jurisdiction 10 order
such special election. The authority
Tor so doing is given wholly by the sec
tlon quoted. In other words the court
or Judge was exercising special iuris
d1ction under special statute, and
quoad hoe was, according to all the au-
thorities, court of limited and inferior
Jurisdiction. AS stated, such petition
as Is prescribed by the statute was
necessary to authorize any action what
ever by the court or judge. In it's alb
sence no would have no more power to
order special election than q private
citizen OF the city. And when proper
petition IS presented, he has no dis
erection but must act, and must order
the issuance of a writ of Gle elton lie
could be compelled to issue the writ by
mandamus were he to refuse. His
action in the premises is ot judicial but
ministerial. True, he must be satisfied
that the petition for the election com
pies with tho requirement OF tho
statute, and to that extent acts iu-
dicially, but, when that is done, his
discretion ceases. and he must obey the
mandate of the statute
"ln cases where certain officers have