The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-19

than so.
The act is not ln offence asainst tho
Commonwealth. but only violation OF
tho city ordinance and the fine pre-
fcribcl hy the ordinance not IN excess
81 the charter. is the measure of punish
mcnt Unless the power 90 lmprison be
plainly given 10 docs a0t exist. and. when
given the guilt OF the accused must be
iudicially ascprtaincd hy "a competent tri-
hurai before 20 riu Doc exercised Ana
whore CORPORATION b. authorized 20 en-
force ts bylaws - "a special manner 10y
luc 10 is limited 90 the manner pre-
scrlbcd I Dillon Munic Corp. Sec a'l.
Id. Soc. $50. EX-Parte Burnett. I'D
Ala. i-l BrCcswick vs. Mayor Of Bruins
wick 20. Ga. e39. ln tho last case IT was
held that where thc charter authorized
bylaws ana punishment for their in-
fraction hv fnc and in prisonmcnt im-
pris0nmc1t fer nOn-paymcnt Of Inc
imYCscl by am ordinance was rot au-
tlouzcd SO. boo Sicssuan VS.. CrOzier.
so Ind. $50. tho charter authorizing the
imposition. OF d fine for stock running "a
largo. DO was held that while the fine
micht De laviully imposed there was no
authority 90 provide los ordir anCe for
iupounIiur ard selling the animals. cit
ing Dillon Supra. Nor can a corporation
enforce los fine or imprisonment. oboli-
cnce 90 ordinances it has power TO pass
unless che right has been unqucstionably
conferred by The iaw-eivcr. The pun
isumcnt of citizen L. prerogativc Of
sof,rci snty only. state ". Bright IS
Ia. Ann. l.
B. without express authority given by
statute the only penalty "a corporation
can prescribe is pccuniary one. usual
is called fine. Dillon. Soc. 3}6.
s. While officers required boy law 20 ex-
II If.r
able for mistakes iu law or errors of
Judgment without any fraud or malice
yet in order 20 CHIN immunity for their
acts they must keep within the limits Of
the jurisdiction assigned them by law.
and when inferior courts or judicial Of
icers act without jurisdiction the law
can give them no protection whatever.
jenkins vs. Waldron. II John. ia. Cooley
ON Torts 4S6 $50
b. Am improper motive may be infer
red from a wrongful act based upon
no reasonable ground such improper mo-
tive constitutes malice in law. and the
act need not Dee prompted by anger. vim
dlctivenese. etc. But such Inference Of
malice may bee removed by evidence.
Forbes VS.. Hagman. 20 Va. JOS
ORDER or ACCOUNT.
BAIT. Packet Co.. VS. Williams & Co.
and X. +. l.. q y. Railroad Co. VS.. Same.
Reversed. Opinion by Judge Keith.
president
The complaint here was against wharf
ago charges 10 addition 10 regular freight
charges. and tho prayer for am iniunc-
tion and for an account and rcimburs-
mcnt
Held. The injunction appears 10 De SUBJ
stantialv in accord; nee with the answer
of the defendant has lctn acquiosccd 200
and tlo practise cni0ined has been aban-
doucd.
The prayer for m account should not
have been granted. a reference is not
awarded TO enable "a plaintiff 10 make
ont IBIS case. nor until it has been ascer-
tanned that he has right 10 demand 10.
IT. must appear with reasonable certain
81 that am order viii boo necessary. not
upon the suggestion that in some COM
tinponcv one VIII Doe required. - Barton
Chan. Pract $50. and cases cited. and
especially. Lee county VS. Fmkcrsol. n
Graft, ls2. Sadler SIS. Whitohouse. SO Va.
&C.
VOLUNTEERS AND CREDITORS
Freeman's Administration VS.. Buffers.
etc. Reversed. Opinion by Keith. T.
Hurt hy WILL gave the whole of his os-
tafc real and personal. To- his wife with
FUN power % dispose of same by tcsta-
mcut The widow disposed of the land
10 Buffers and wife by various deeds.
and afterwards by Will devised the same
land TO them. A bin was filed by plain
um I'm error. dismissed. and afterwards
amended so as TO implead widows adj
ministrator and make aVcrmcut that WI
dow died possessed OF personal estate
inadequate 20 the payment of her debts.
and. therefore that the lands devils sd by
hcr under the power conferred by her hus-
bands will upon her exercise of that
power in favor of volunteers. became
subject TO her debts. The amended bill
was also dismissed.
Held. The case is controlled by the
construction of ;he viii of the husband
which conferred the power and the Will
Of the widow by which tho power was
executed. for the avcrmonts m the ana
swers so far as they relcte TO the Iay-
ment of valuable consideration by But
tcrs and wife for the lands conveyed TO
them set up affirmative matter of which
there is mo- proof The ease is consid-
erred. therefore. as upon "a demurrer to
the Din.
Tho unlimited power OF disposition by
viii the widow executed in favor of mere
volunteers She died insolvcut and, UNI
less her creditors can subject The proper
O. $50 appointed hy her in tavor OF
volunteer. her debts must go unsatisiied.
A cardinal rule of legal ethics incul-
Gates the duty of being just before being
generous. Donations. voluntary transfers
etc.. hy debtor even In favor Of wife
or children. which might have been used
TO provide for his debts have been made
Co yield % tho paramount claims Of
creditors. Even whore debtor with a
general power 20 appoint property which
he never owned exercises that power IN
favor of volunteers the property in their
hands is bud red With the debts of the
lppoiuter f necessary for the satisfac-
ton 0i them. This shows the application
~ the rule 10 Doe SO searching AS % reach
property which though not owned by the
debtor Doc might have made his. but fas
voluntarily, without valuable corsidera-
ton. mad, the property OF others. polds
trustee VS.. Geigcrs administrator. 2
Graft lo1, Jeremys Eq. $780, King Us.
Hauscr 20 Va tS. Penn VS.. Guggen-
hcimer ld Ni
Where "a person has a power of appiont-
mont. and executes It. the property is
deemed in equity part Of his assets. and
subject TO his creditors. I'm preference
TO voluntary appointees or logatees.
Brandics rs. Cochran. 1l2 L. 5. 1852.
BUT in order TO raise this equity. the
power must be actually executed, for
equity never aids the non-eXecuuon of a
power And though creditors prevail over
volunteer. yet If the volunteer sell 10 .
person bona hde and for valuable consid-
Grafton. such purchaser will be preferred
10 the creditors as having "a preferable
equity WINS ENcrs. l2S. SILK Us
Prime Leading Cases To-. pt. !, 5S
Johnson W.. Gushing. Is y. H.. 29S.
COVENANT AS TO ENCUMBRANCES