Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-16

,aw partnership. and the partners them
selves would have TO be put az far az
nocsihIe IN sfatu quo.
P1Trhb a accounts OF the commissioners In the
cause are here referred 10 al length, ana
the Court OF Appeals holds that this de
cree correctly settled the principles or
the cause. and that the plalnti'l had Deen
affirmed.
County Court Was Right.
The case OF Morris against Deane and
others from the Circuit Court Of Greene
county was also decided yesterday, Judge
George NJ. Harrison delivering the opin-
ion which reversed the judgment OF the
lower court. This was an action of un-
lawful detGiner. The opinion In the out
set says that the contention OF the de-
PENDANT in error that the case should be
dismissed because no exception was
taken to the Judgment OF the Circuit
Court. was not tenable.
THE Court is further of opinion says
Judge Harrison. that the plaintiffs I'm the
county Court wholly failed to show that
they were entitled TO the possession of
the land i'm controversy, and. therefore,
that court did not err In giving Judgment
in favor Of the defendant. The only
matter in issue. however was the right
OF possession. and therefore, the deolara-
ton by the County Court i'm its judg-
ment that the defendant held the fee
simple title. cannot prejudice the rights
of the parties In any proceeding involving
the title TO said land.
THE Court is further of opinion that
the Circuit Court erred IN reversing the
judgment of the County Court and in
giving judgment for the Plaintiffs. = For
the foregoing reasons the judgment of
the Circuit Court must be reversed and
set aside. and this court Will enter such
judgment as said Circuit Court ought 10
have entered.
Powers of Supervisors.
Judge Keith delivered the opinion in
the case Of the Manly Manufacturing
Company against A. Broaddus and Il. ).
Parks. which came up as an appeal from
the Circuit Court of Page county. The
decree OF the lower tribunal was re-
Andrew Broaddus and r. s. Parks. resi-
dents ana taxpayers OF Page county.
brought suit against the Manly Manu-
featuring Company. Of Dalton. Ga. and
John W. Rathgeb. \. III. Keyser. II. &.
Knicely. and q. r. Brubaker members
of the Board Of Supervisors OF Page
county. I ne Manly Manufacturing Com
pany contracted with the Board of Super
vsOrs 10 build n county Jail and jailer' 9
residence for the sum Of S6.iS2l 10 be
erected H. accordance with the terms OF
written contract but the contractors
got the members of the Board of Super
visors, i'm their individual capacity TO
allow certain alterations. which made
the structure cost the county Sl3. 1890. IL
was further alleged that the work was inn
perfectly done. and the materials used
were of Indifferent character. The bill
filed by the plaintiffs prayed that the
Board of Supervisors be restrained from
accepting the Jail and residence until
completed in accordance with the terms
of the contract. &c. and the Board of
Supervisors were put into possession of
said buildings. but without prejudice 10
any of the questions involved. and they
were directed to put the jail into condi-
ton to be used for the purposes for
which it was designed. After speaking
of some Of the legal steps taken in the
matter. Judge Keith says. we do not
propose to discuss the right of taxpayers
to come into a court Of equity TO protect
their interests in a great variety OF cases
The Board Of Supervisors was clothed
by statute law with the duty Of providing
Jail for the county of Page, and OF
keeping ii i'm good order. Code of Nir-
ginia. section 925. The Circuit Court. by
section 93 is given Authority to compel
the supervisors to perform this duty. but
its jurisdiction in that behalf is TO be
exercised by mandamus. and not by q
bill in equity" The point of contention
here was that the members Of the board
in their individual capacity, were with
out authority. which Judge Keith says Is
free from doubt and the only question
70 be considered was whether the plain
tiffs under the facts in the case. hac
any footing i'm court. The board was not
party 10 the suit; there was no aver
ment that I'm making the contract IL was
acting in excess of its authority. 1t was
clothed with ample powers TO erect the
building, contract for II, make modih
cations i'm the contract and to make
such alterations and changes as II might
seem wise and proper to make. There
was no suggestion OF fraud or collision
but the gravamen Of the bill was tina
the contract had not been fulfilled anc
performed by the other party i'm such
manner as TO entitle it 10 payment.
RECOURSE OF \ TAXPAYER.
Judge Keith then says: "ro hold tina
tax-payNr can come into court OF
equity i'm a case in which no Maud Il
charged. and where there is no pretenc'
that the board was transcending lti
mower merely to settle an account be
tween a claimant and the BOARD o
Supervisors would be to extend the Jurls
diction OF the court far beyond the Limits
sanctioned by any adjudicated case o.
toxt-writer to which we have been REFER
red /" The opinion quotes from the 1871
volume of English chancery Reports
page 2iS regarding this matter, and thel
construes sections $50. so, and SiS OF tn
Code OF Virginia. saying That they pro
vide a remedy for any person having ;
claim against the county. ana amor
ample protection to the claimant. TO tn
county. and to the aNpayer. RMS pro
vides for an appeal to the Board OF 81
pervisors. thence TO the County court
Another ground upon which jurisdiction
was asked was that receiver might D
appointed TO preserve the property. which
IN was alleged. was rapidly going 10 de
cav. Judge Keith neld that the right u
| possession was vested i'm the Board o
Supervisors. The board could not eyei
| give a lien upon a public building. Thos
who contract with the Board of Super
visors TO do work for the county. or FUR
| nish materials to II. 40 not DO so upol
| the expectation OF securing their compen
| satiou by a lien, but upon the faith an
1 credit OF the county. The plaintiffs ar
/ without standing In court says the opin
| ion as il concludes by reversing IN
lower court and remanding the case u
| the Circuit Court OF rage county,
| there be proceeded with In accordance
/ with The Views herein expressed.
Other business Yesterday.
Richmond and Manchester Railwa!
! Company vs.. MOore's Administrator. Pc
tition TO rehear refused
l. Lawrence GrOner. Esq. allowed 4
| nractice as counsel i'm this court
/ Stoaebraker & Hutchins VS. Hicks an
! others. Further argued by G. +: Nc
| Mullen. ESQ. for appellees, and j. ). Bar
| hour. ESQ. for appellant. and submitted
| Groner. &c. VS.. Foster Argued by }
| Lawrence Groner. Esq. for appellant
and Richard Wake. Esq. Tor appellees
/ and continued until tomorrow.
| Srhe next cases TO be called will b
| Grubbs VS.. National Life Maturity lnsu
| rance Company. and Grubbs vs., Uniol
! Central Iife-lnsurance company.
For His Far Western Home.
Mr.. George II. Scott newspaper COZ
| RESPONDENT from the far Western Stat
| of Montana has just completed cours
| in the Smithdeal Business College il
/ shorthand. and will leave here at one