The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-28

pose taxes upon all subjects within its
jurisdiction not withheld from taxation
by the legislature. whether taxed by the
State or not Ould x Darlington w. City
Of Richmond, q Graft 46i: Humphreys
VS. City of Richmond, % Graft, 81. The
clause OF the charter comforting the gem
eral power 10 be exercised, in accord
ance with the Constitution and laws Of
the State" IL is alleged, has reference
TO Sec. 1912. and must be read with 1t TO
ascertain what power OF taxation the
city has The words quoted are the
equivalent of mot repugnant to- mot
in conflict with" mot inconsistent with,
and do not limit the taxing power Of the
city 10 the provisions of the section. They
only express a limitation upon the gem
eral power conferred. that would neces-
sarily have been understood. No author
ity can be exercised otherwise than In
accordance with the laws. &C., Of the
State and of the United States. III there
were conflict between See. 1912 and the
charter. Sec. 1OlS expressly provides that
the general law shall not be construed to
repeal the provision Of the charter. See
O. < Alex. r. r. Co. VS.. City of Alexan-
dria. II Graft. l1G.
CORPORATE POWERS.
Lvnchburg and RivermJnt Street Rail-
way Company VS.. Cameron. Affirmed.
opinion by Judge buchanan.
Bill 10 restrain the city, its officers,
etc. from endorsing or guaranteeing Ger
tain bonds which the appellant proposed
ia issue and the city had agreed to guar
antee. and TO annul the agreement as
ultra wires. Appellant had agreed 10 fur
nsh electric light to the city. TO erect a
new power station. in which the city was
to aid it. appellant TO execute mort
gage on it's plant. etc. to secure its bonds.
and the city to guarantee principal and
interest.
Held 1. The Jurisdiction Of equity In
such cases Is we'll settled Bull vs.. Reed.
l3 Graft. 49, Rober VS.. McWhorter. u
Va, PA: Champion VS.. Zabrieske' lOl u
s.. 60l. This Jurisdiction is exercised not
only where the municipal corporation mas
authority. under certain conditions, which
have not been complied with, to make
subscriptions or lend its credit TO another
corporation. but also in cases where IL
has no authority to make such snnscrlp-
lions or lend such credit under any cir
cumstances. The fact that the securities
when issued may be void In the hands or
innocent holders Is no sufhciert reason
why the taxpayers OF the corporation
should not have the right 10 call upon
court OF equity TO prevent lneir issue
and thus avoid the wrong aud provide
a remedy which will reach at once the
whole mischief secure the rights OF all
for the present and future and thus avoid
multiplicity OF suits. Bull VS.. Reed ana
Champion vs. Zabrieske, supra.
?. Municipal corporations in this State
possess and can exercise the Following
powers and none other; first those grant
ed IN express words: second those neces-
rarily or fairly implied IN or incident TO
the powers expressly granted; and third
those essential TO the declared objects
and purposes OF The corporation. not sim
nlv convenient but indispensable. VIM
chester vs. Redmond, 30 Va, Ill. and
cases cited.
2. The general rule IS that the officers
or governing body In Il corporation. whe-
Their public or private. have no implied
mower 10 bind it as the surety, endorser
or euarantor. for another In business
I'm which il has no interest Their au-
thorty 10 bind 1t by contracts ~ its name
Is OF the same general character as that
by which a partner binds his firm the