Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-07-24
NOT THE SANE CASE.
JUDGE wELLFORD's DELINQUENT
LANDS DECISION YET OPERATIVE.
CLERK CHRISTIAN TESTED THE LAW.
He Made Up Case mt His Own Ex-
pense TO Have All Doubt as TO the
! Operation of the Act Removed
Full Text OF the Opinion.

The delinquent land case recently de-
cided by the Supreme Court OF Appeals
was not an appeal from the recent de-
cision Of Judge Wexford granting a writ
of mandamus against Mr. Walter Chris
tan, the Clerk of the Hastings Court
as heretofore stated. That decision was
rendered in another case, entitled ''Poh-
lig vs.. Christian" and did not involve
the point raised in the case OF Brown
VS.. Christian, decided by the Court of APP
peals
The only point decided by Judge Well
ford in the case of Pohug Vs. Christian,
was granted and issued was that the
application filed for the purchase Of the
plaintiffs land was defective under the
law. and was finally admitted by the APP
plicant, who thereupon abandoned the
case. The decision in this case has not
been reversed, but still remains in force.
1.-The opinion of the Court OF Appeals,
printed below, explains very clearly tho
boint involved in the case of Brown VS..
christian. ~
WOULD NOT APPEAL 1T.
Mr.. Wallace y. Brown. the attorney
who won the case In the Circuit Court,
had no connection with that just decided
by the Court Of Appeals He was asked
70 present his case 20 the Court of APP
peals in such way as to insure its de-
cision upon the point Just decided by it.
but refused TO do so. because he was of
the opinion that the Court of Appeals
would not grant a mandamus for that rea-
son. which opinion that courts decision
Justified Nevertheless. he has been over
whelmed with sympathy for his supposed
legal defeat on the part of persons who
have been misled by erroneous accounts
OF the cases, or by the similarity of their |
rifles and subject matters.
Mr.. Walter Christian, the Clerk OF tho |
Hastings Court, deserves great credit for |
she course OF action pursued by him in |
these tax cases. Although the decision |
OF the Court OF Appeals sustains his con-
struction Of the law. he was unwilling
10 rely upon his own Judgment in the I
matter, so earnest was his desire TO
have the law construed otherwise, IL
possible. and thereby rendered less oppres-
sivo. Accordingly, he had the test-case
prepared and presented 10 the Court OF
Appeals. the final tribunal in such mat
ters. at his own expense. The result IS
tiers Is now at an end, and the public
knows exactly what its rights are under
the law.
DECISION OF THE COURT.
The following is the opinion in full,
handed down by Judge Harrison in tho
case OF Brown VS.. Christian:
This petition for a mandamus involves
n construction OF an act of the Legisla- |
ture approved February II. 1898. in rela-
ton 20 delinquent lands purchased in the
name OF tho Auditor.
After setting forth the mode Of proce-
dure; what the application 10 purchase
delinquent lands must contain; how,
when, and upon whom copies OF the apph-
alton, must be served. the act proceeds
as. follows;
III no person who has a right TO re- :
ieen at the time OF the service of the
copies, or of the completion OF the order Q
u publication aforesaid. appear within 4
our months after such copies have been y
served us aforesaid, or within four
months after the completion OF the order
y publication, when there is a puhica- | n
ion and redeem said real estate by pay | /.
ng to the Clerk Of the County or Corpo- =
alton Court all OF the taxes. renal;ies.
nd costs herewith connected. as well n
3 ali the fees and costs attending the I
rocesainS under this section, including p
penalty OF q. which shall DO paid 10 a
nc applicant then ths person who made Y
40 application shall have the right 70 | O
urchaSe tho real estate within fiye days | n
rom the expra ion OF tho four months.
; AFORESAID, by paying 10 the Clerk all
axes. penairls3, fees. and costs"
The controverted question is as TO the
mo when the right Of the applicant TO | =,
be q penalty attaches. n
ne petitioners insist that the right 20 al
us - penalty does not arise until a copy :. w
! tho application has been served ur1n m
10 persons named therein. On tho other or
ana. the defendant contends that the a,
Snt attaches immediately Upon tho Ding Sr
the application 10 purchase: That wheS ~
10 apphcauon has been fled, although az
. copy thereof has been issueA or .led pu
pen any OF the persons mentioned TO
'ssstsd. IN orSe, =, sre uuty OF those "a De