Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-12-02
THE LAW is UPHELD.
ACT FOR SALE or DELINQUENT
LANDS CONSTITUTIONAL.
hANDASUS IN ANOTHER CASE.
The Application in the Culpeper
Case lnsufficicnt--suprem Court
Hefuses TO Give Hite n New Trial
Other Decisions and Writs.

Two cases arising under the new de.
hnquent land law. which is being harsh
~ criticised throughout the State. were
decided in the Supreme Court of Appeals
yesterday. Judge Harrison prepared the
opinions in both cases In one. in which
'he court refused TO issue q writ OF man.
damus, the court declared the act 10 be
constitutional and valid, and in the other
me same view was taken. though a writ
OF mandamus was issued on technical
grounds.
Haddens Christian applied for a writ
or mandamus TO compel John II. taylor.
Clerk Of the County Court Of Hanover.
10 accept the sum of $3.50 rendered him
in fun for all taxes upon his land. The
Clerk declined to receive this money, con-
tending that the land could not be re-
deemed without the payment of the s.
penalty and costs.
Judge Harrison says in his opinion:
Two grounds are alleged in support of
this application for a mandamus. The
hrst Is that the act of February "a, 1888,
repealed so much Of the act Of February
II, 1898 as provided for the payment of
the costs Of application and the penalty
of So 10 the applicant; and the second is
that the act of February IL, 1895. is un-
constitutional, and therefore. void.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT CLEAR.
In February, 1898. the Legislature passed
two acts, the first, on the 18th day Of that
month, amending and re-enacting section
The Code nc lad hxro
proved March o. 1894, providing how lands
purchased in the name of the Auditor
and not redeemed, should be sold; and
the second, on the 9th OF said month
amending and re-enacting section 664 Of
the Code as amended ly an act ap-
proved February Is, $780, providing how
and by whom real estate so purchased
may be redeemed. These two act, pass
ed by the same Legislature, amended and
re-enacted two sections Of Chapter rs of
the Code which contained forty-one sec
lions, together constituting a comprehen
sive system of law touching 1.-The sale of
delinquent lands" The amendment and
re-enactment of sections 664 and 656 must
therefore be read in their regular order
In tho room and stead Of the original
sections found in the Code. When thus
read, the legislative intent is clear, and
there is no ground for the contention
that the one repeats any part Of the
other and no reason why both cannot
stand together.
RECORDED VOTE NOT NECESSARY.
The second contention is that the act
OF February IL, 1898, was not passed in
the House of Delegates by a recorded
vote, and is, therefore. void, for the reason
that Article X. section IL, Of the State
Constitution provides that ION the pas
sage of every act which imposes. con-
tinues, or revives any appropriation OF
public or trust money, or property, or
releases, discharges, or commits any
claim or demand of the State, the vote
shall be determined by ayes and noes, and
the names Of the persons voting for or
against the same shall be entered on the
journals of the respective houses, and a
majority Of all members elected to each
house shall be necessary TO give it the
force Of law" This provision of the Con-
stitution was not intended TO apply to
the passage of an act like that under
consideration. The act in question i'm
poses, continues, or revives no appropria.
ton of public or trust-money, nor does it
release, discharge. or commute any claim
or demand of the State. 1t is a general
law providing for the sale of lands the
State has been compelled TO buy as
means of realizing her delinquent taxes,
contemplated sale they are. like all other
taxes, paid into the public treasury, and
the constitutional provision which has
been invoked is in no way invaded or af.
fected thereby.
For these reasons the writ prayed for
must be denied.
Mandamus on Technical Grounds.
The case in which the mandamus was
awarded was that of h. H. Lewis VS.. w.
II. Coons, Clerk of Culpeper County
Court. 1t seems to be plainly evident
that this act is producing results in no
wise contemplated by the Legislature, and
this case has been originated and fought
throughout with great ability by Senator
Jeffries. of Culpeper, who was member
OF the body that enacted the law.
Held: !. Two of the grounds urged In
the application for the mandamus are
held insufficient in the case of Christian
VS.. Taylor, Clerk, reported supra.
The first contention is that the appli-
cation OF Baker TO become purchaser
does not state in whose name the land
stood at date of sale TO the Common
wealth, the statute requiring that fact
to be stated, and also the name OF the
person in whose name II stands when
the application is filed.
Held: The applicants language ito
purchase a tract standing in the
name Of f. II. Lewis, purchased
by the Commonwealth, or Auditor of the
state. at the sale of delinquent lands,
December. 1892, for 1891 taxes, and al
the date of the application standing N
the name Of T. II. Lewis" is substan'
tial compliance with the statute. Two
statements are made-that the land Stoon
in the name Of +. Ii. Lewis at the time
the application was filed, and the hrst
statement read with the last can mean
nothing else but that II stood in his name
at the time Of the~purchase by the Com
monWealth. .
II is further contended that the appli.
cation IS invalid because the price onered
is NOT the amount required by the
statute-"the amount for which the sale
10 the Commonwealth was made, TO-
e.ether with such additional sums as
would have accrued from taxes and leVles
and interest. II such real estate had not
been so purchased by the CommohWeaita'
with interest on the amount Tor when
said sale was made at per cent. from
dav OF sale, and on the additional sums
from the 18th of December In the year
In which the same would have accrued.
Held: l regard the language used Droau
o,oueh 10 be a compliance with the
statute but the majority OF the court
thinks II was only necessary Tor apph-
cart N declare his readiness TO pay the
amount required by law, and that, mas
rouch as he has undertaken to specify
- be will pay and failed to include
80 Interest or the States demand pro
4fffa q