Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-10-02

as the Office erected by him was used
as n law Office. by paying an annual
ground rent OF 81. In 1874 Damron sold
and conveyed his interest TO X. /. Par
IRISH. In the scar 1885 the Beard OF
Supervisors granted Parrish leave 10 build
an addition 20 his Office, which was done.
and the building used as law Office
until 1898. when the Board OF Supervisors
demanded possession OF the land upon
which they were erected. and. upon the
appellee's refusal 10 surrender posses
I sion, the county OF Allegheny brought an
action OF eiectment TO recover the land;
/ whcreupon Parrish filed bill IN equity
to enjoin the prosecution Of the action
! of ejcciment and to compel tho specific
execution Of his contracts with the
| county
Held: THAT unaer the provision OF
! chapter %. section l. Code OF 1888 which
is stil in force, neither the County Court
nor the Boald OF Supervisors had any
! power 10 make the contracts sued on,
and that they were ultra wires and void:
/ that the provision OF the Code which
required that the ouri-HOuse Square
( shall be occupied with the courthouse.
/ Clerks Office, and jail and the residue
! planted with trees. and kept as a place
| for the people Of the county 20 meet and
| confer together" exhausted al the USES
/ TO which the property could be lawfully
pct
: .. The county Is not cstopped from set
! ting W the ultra wires acts OF its agents
/ In defence Of the suits brought, since the
/ agents officers. or governing body Of a
/ municipal corporation cannot bind the
corporation by a. contract which IS beyond
| the scope of its powers. Their duties
and powers are prescribed by statute or
by charter. which all persons not only
may know. but are bound TO know.
8. The statute Of limitations cannot be
relied on i'm this case. Adverse pos
session can never arise between a vendor
and his vendce. whore The vendor has
retained the title until The vendee has
discovered the privity OF title between
them by the assertion Of an adverse
right and openly and continuously dis
claimed the title OF his vendor, and such
disclaimer has been clearly brought home
TO the knowledge Of his vendor.
KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAs CASE.
Knights Of Pythias VS.. Weller. Opinion
by Judge George NJ. Harrison. From the
Hastings Court. city of Stanton. Re
vcrsed.
II the charter or governing statute OF
the corporation fixes a. definite period OF
time at W en- its corporate life shall ex-
pire, whe that period is reached the
corporation Is ipso facto dissolved. with
all the consequences Of "A dissolution by
any other mode. without any direct ac-
ton 10 that end, either Oh the part or
the State or Of it's members, and no pow
ers created by the charter or governing
statute can thereafter be exercised, eX-
cept such as are continued by force OF
the statute law for the purpose Of wind
ing up its affairs.
In the case at bar, when the twenty
year life. fixed by law Of the charter of
the Knights of Pythias of the Word
had expired, in 1890 the corporation as
such was dead, and it was absolutely
without power to adopt the bylaw re-
lied on in this case 10 defeat the claim
of appellee Nor did those who took
charge OF the affairs and assets Of the
corporation after its charter had expired
have power to pass such a bylaw
II is not necessary for the limit OF eX-
istence to a corporation to be embodied
in its charter; it is sufficient if IT appear
I'm the general law authorizing the char
ter The general law forms an essen
tial part Of the charter and all parties
are bound by its terms whether copied
in the charter or found only on the
statute-book.
The amended act of 1884 striking out
the twenty-year limit only applied to cor
porations thereafter chartered; it had no
application to corporations in existence
at the time Il was passed. A statute
does not have retroactive effect unless
clearly expressed or necessarily implied.
The declaration i'm this case fails TO
a1lege that the liability sought TO be re-
covered had become by agreement the
debt OF the corporation sued. The evil
dence shows that the policy declared upon
was issued and executed by another than
the defendant The evidence must be
confined TO the issues made by the plead
ing It was essential that tn, declara-
ton should allege that the debt sued
for had become that Of the defendant
company. There was a variance between
the allegations and the proof, and the
defendants motion TO strike out the
plaintiffs evidence ought to have been
sustained.
Crauford's Administrator VS.. Smiths
Executor. Opinion by Judge George NJ.
Harrison. From the Circuit Court OF
Clark county. Affirmed.
Showalter VS.. Rupe. From the Circuit
Court of Pulaski county. Appeal and su-
persedeas awarded. Bond. $50.
Sabin VS. Potomac Electric Company
ct ais From the Circuit Court OF Alex
andrla county. Appeal granted. Bond,
$500.
Town Of Bridgewater VS. Allemong. Pc
tition for rehearing filed and refused.
more than ten days having elapsed since !
the entry OF judgment.
Kimball & Fink, receivers OF the Nor |
folk and Western Railroad Company. vs.. |
b. f. Borden From Circuit Court Of |
Warren county. Written of error award |
ed. Bond, 500.