The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-12-06

We do not propose to question this
right say The Goufb his hti ea5oymendi
| the act o. the Circuit Court In no way
defeats or impairs the tax-receivable
quality Of the coupon II petitioner ac-
| quired the right TO pay his taxes In
coupons. that right continues undimin-
| ished and unimpdired by tho Judgment
| complained Of.
The right to sue a State does not exist
| * debtO Justltiae. IL Is privilege she
! extends or withholds az 10 her may seem
| just and proper. and which she may re-
J call az pleasure. unless interests have
| vested under and by virtue or II, when
"hat was a mere gratuity becomes d
| right not TO be impaired by the subse-
| qucnt repeal OF the law.
has any right vested under the repeal
ed sec. fo>, OF such character as 10 bring
1T under the principle Just announced.
and 80 engrafted upon the contract OF
the STATE the remedy II confeFs as 10
bring II under the clause in the constf-
tuition which forbids a state To pass Il
law impairing the obligation OF contracts?
section 4ls authorizes certain things to be
zone. and u the jury found an affirmative
verdict for the taxpayer, the Judgment
OF the court based on their verdict. was
certified TO the Treasurer. who was then
20 receive the coupons and refund the
money TO the taxpayers The court was
not authorized to render a judgment for
the payment OF the money. Its whole
duty was TO certify the facts, when its
jurisdiction was exhausted. 1t was
judgment under that section.
Waite Chief Justice. in lOl L. =, 35a,
sGys. 1.-THE remedy which is protected
by the cOntract-clause OF the Consutu-
ton. Is something more than the privi-
lege OF having claim aoJudicated. Mere
judicial inquiry into the rights of parties
IS not enough. There must be The power
TO enforce the results or sucn an en-
quiry before there can he said TO be a
remedy which the Constitution deems
part of contract. Inquiry IS one thing
remedy another. Adjudication Is or no
value as a remedy, unless enforcement
follows II Is OF no practical Importance
that u right has been established II the
right is no more available Afterwards
than before. The Constitution preserves
only such remedies as are required 10
enforce q contract.
Here the State has consented to he
sued only for the purposes OF adluuica-
tiOn. The power OF the courts ended Mneh
the judgment was rendered. In erect,
all that has been done Is TO give persons
holding claims against IN" STATE the
privilege Of having them audited by lhe
courts. instead OF some appropriate du-
diting officer. When judgment has ptfh
rendered the liability Of the state mas
been judicially ascertained. but there IN.
power OF the court ends. Inc state u a.
liberty to pay the judgment OF ho.
The obligations OF the contract have been
finally determined but the claimant mas
still only the faith and credit or the
State 10 rely on for their iuliiment' me nc
courts are pOWcrltsS. ~ INNS -,
The tudgmen, rcpends on the VIII OF the
In ~ l.. s. 2si. it is said that it Il,
competent for the Legislature 10 f-p'tl
an act which. when II was passed. VS.
a mere gratuity. II while II was IN OK
istence no vested rights have been ac-
quired under n or I'm virtue OF IL. ~
The opinion 81 the court then Us, ma
while the act repeating section iVN OF tt'
code Is not I'm conflict with the Consu-
tuition OF the State. or the United StHtts'
but is valid and binding ana mat lners
fore the Circuit Court did hol err ~.
dismissng the petition, II should nave
directed the coupons Of the petitioner,
held for Identification, TO hc returned 10
him The State certainly ought not 10
retain both The coupons anu M ~. ne
money paid, he viii, upon tne return %
his coupons be restored 70 his status a.
OF the date Of the original TRANSACTION d.
far as il is I'm the power OF TINS court
TO relieve him. .. ,,,
Tho Judgment Of the Circuit Court VIII
be amended so "a 10 proViue 10. w
return OF the coupons 10 inc pialhtin'
and. as amended. be affirmed hnt WIN
out damages or costs.
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES,.
spoonor's Executors against lumsh.s
Administrator From the Circuit Court
Of Albemarlc. Affirmed. Opinion by
Ield The general rule OF law is that
q personal representative cannot impeach
as fraudulent transaction OF ms He-
cedcut The Virginia statute avoids
fraudulent gifts. cOnveyances, &c, as 10
creditors and purchasers, but confcls no
pOwer on the personal Representative 10
impeach them. n leaves them SooH D.
tween the parties hd lheI pIlF'e7' N""''
section 2i5s-'59 go, 49,. a..
Vet such representative would have the
right. and IN would be his duty, to re-
cover as assets OF ne estate we SUI
iect OF gift or voluntary assignment
not perfected hv the decedent IN MS lie
"A s executor brought suit, not only
as executor but In mis- own right as
creditor Of his decedent, 90 recover thS
proceeds OF "a policy Of insurance alleged
TO have been assigned TO ;, Wh5h a.
Segment was never coiisuihili 49,. "1 ~,
abandoned His right as creditor 10
have such an assignment set ASIDE TOT
the payment OF debts. n case OF den-
cheney OF assets, even thousn iu"E ~
ecuted and complete. cannot De guea-
u5ned To such a suit he would De "a
necessary party as Administrator hltl
the peculiar circumstance mere IL We
immatorial whether party plalntin or
defendant. he might have brought SUIT
I'm his own right as a creditor, ana maze
himself q party defendant ln MS h1t-
ciarv character. lie brought II IN MS
C,,aif character as creditor and personal
reDreeentatiye as IN Leigh, t-3 IN
this there was no error In \, Va, '1l.
Judge Lewis. after reviewing the leaaIns
authorities as to what constitutes Naild
and cofnDlefc gift, concluded Win the |
d@clarafion. Nor arc We aware OF any
authority for holding that mere verbal
declaration of a gift, unaccompanied by |
amy act or circumstance clearly showing |
"a Surrender and acceptance OF dominion !
over the article constitutes a Nailu bit /
under any circumstances. In ms case !
trere was no delivery OF the policy by |
~ to : or OF any writing assigning II |
10 him without which the GIT was IN
.complcte and invalid a mere nullity. ana |
corseouently incapable OF being enforced, /
-tf4 al
ANOTHER WILL CASE.
Trustees Of Emory and Henry College !
against Shoemaker College and others. /
T-ror the Circuit Court OF Scott county. |
Reycrsed Opinion by Harrison, judge.
Shoemaker bequcathed fund for edit !
csfiouaf uurDOses, to be expended Tor /
tviticn al college TO be erected on |
certain LOT I'm Estillyile dedicated by him /
for tnat purpose; but II such coleEe
should not be erected, then the accrulhE !
pronte 10 be expended at Emory and |
Henry aud Martha Washington Colleges
for The said purpose lie died without |
dediratinc the lot. Shoemaker College
was chartered I'm 1894. after the death |
If the festatOr. and proposes erecting |
college buildings at Estllville on lot |
conveyed 10y another person Tor that |
Held. That the testator having failed 70
dedicate the lot. the Shoemaker College.
or anv other college that may be esteb- /
iished at Estillville. mas no claim on the
funs ana that Emory ana Henry ana
Martha WASHINGTON Colleges are entitled /
io receive the same according 10 the |
terms Of the beguesL
SUMMARY.
T,loa lanes Keith preSldent-Jdmmi- |