Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-18
MEYER SYCLE,
lO3 East Broad Street,
l7-2t MAI CUkNtk FhoI.

mn . f-~k
-
damus to collect the school taxes, but
not the county levies. by reason of ex-
emption from same under the town char
ter.
Held: l. The writ of mandamus only
issues where there is a clear and specific
legal right to be enforced, or a duty
which ought to be and can be performed,
and where there is no other specific and
adequate legal remedy by action or
otherwise. High on Extra. Rem, see
lions 9-l5; Milliner's Admir- VS.. Harrison,
81 Graft, 422.
2. The powers and duties of the Board
OF Supervisors are fixed by statute, and
1t has no other than those conferred
expressly by necessary implication. Roper
VS.. McWharton, Il Va, PA. Having
fixed the amount of the county taxes
and ordered a levy for the same, It had
performed its duty, and the duty de-
volved on the Treasurer TO collect and
account for the taxes. When he makes
his settlement with the board at the end
OF the year, he is ~chargeable with the
whole amount Of the county taxes, and
is entitled TO certain credits Of insolvent
taxes, Illegal taxes, &c. The balance
due by him being ascertained, he and
his %sureties become liable therefor. and
the board may proceed against him and
them to compel payment-a specific and
adequate remedy. The fact of his having
a doubt as to his duty to collect any
part of the taxes, and failing to do so.
Is not sufficient reason why the board
should not charge him with such taxes.
nor does 1t furnish ground for the board
10 invoke the writ of mandamus.
Inc motion 10 quash and the demurrer
ought TO nave been sustained, and the
proceedings dismissed without prejudice
to either party.
PLEADING.
Birckhead VS.. Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
way Company. Reversed. Opinion by
Buchanan. j.
Action for damages for injury in a col
lision. Demurrer to declaration, and each
count thereof sustained as to two counts
and oyerruled as TO one. Leave 10 amend
and demurrer to amended declaration. |
as before, and sustained as to each
count and judgment for defendant.
Held: /. Plaintiff must be treated as
having waived all objection to the courts
action on the demurrer TO the original
declaration by filing an amended one In
lieu thereof. If he desired to test the
courts ruling on it and obtain the benefit
Of 1t as originally framed, he should have
49, NA~ AiA ~ bt ShEl1AAltl |
and those counts to go for nought, in
stead OF filing an amended declaration.
Hopkins VS.. Richardson, 9 Graft, 4Sj, 4S7;
Darracott VS.. c. & o. R'y Co.. 50 Va,
2SS, 29O; HarTis's Admir- vs.. n. q w.
r.. II. Co., So Va, go. The recital in the
order Of court when plaintiff asked leave
to amend that he did so without waving
objection to the ruling as to the original
declaration, does not affect the question.
The legal consequence was to waive the
objection, whatever his Intention. 6 Am.
and Eng. Encyclo. III. and Pr, $500.
2. Since the case Of Baltimore and Ohio
Company VS.. Sherman, 30 Graft,
co.,, decided nearly twenty years ago, #
has been regarded as settled law that in
actions Of tort like that it is sufficient TO
the injury generally without set
ting out the ~efendant's misconduct with
particularly than was done i'm
the first count in that case. n. q W.1
r. X. Co. VS.. Harman's Amir, So Va.
jG2; S. a. J.. r. co. W.. Joyner. 81
Va, 3jl, $50; Rich'd Loco. Works VS..
Ford, 2 S. b.. r., 5O9-'1O.
8. The plaintiff having failed TO allege
IN which capacity he was on the train
Of the receivers, and TO state fully the
circumstances under which he was in
Iured, the court was not called upon to
Nf"- NtNAA AAS' I'N3AAbAAo 1HgAA VI n
t could not do so properly until the evil :
was i'm and 1t was asked for in :
5tructions upon the law Of the case. ;
AGENCY. !
.ackson VS.. Pleasanton. Amended and [
Affirmed. Opinion by Buchanan. j.
L. brought suit to compel j. to convey q
o him a tract of land i'm GOochland- y
Balling Hall'-upon his paying ]. the Y
mount advanced by him on the purchase h
rice, alleging that when j. took the II
TO himself he was the agent
I F., and, therefore, held the title I'm
rust for him. 1t does not clearly appear
'hether j. was P.'s agent when they
'ent TO look at the lands for sale I'm c,
oochland, but it does appear that very a.
BON after they got there and =. had de- Y,
'rmined TO buy, J. undertook 10 look
tier the title for him, obtain conveyance. al
nd advance certain moneys I'm payment W
l%erefor, i'm case Il. failed 10 get Il from bt
Is trustees. Under instructions from J.. hi
he trustees Of u. being slow, Balling III
all was conveyed to him and he gave W
deed Of trust thereon TO secure credit
March Z, 1895. This, without in
lie assent or knowledge Of F., and the m
lrchase by j. in his own name must be +,
garded as made for his principal. for r
hom he will be considered trustee sil
v NAAAoAA . SlAuitCtllOly H - HlEdLk.,HH 81, 60
osely vs.. Buck. 3 Munf., 23D, unless the eli
Of March IL, 1895, was binding -
j. After the conveyance 10 j., and
fore March 18th, and while %endeaVoring
agree on the compensation due j. for
rendered In Philadelphia, or for w
rvices there and I'm Goochland, j. told
he had bought the lands for himself "a
d that he (P) had no rights therein. I,
lis r.. denied and they separated. on
3 18th of March. j. agreed 10 sell the .
operty to L. for $4,000. Il. testifying dt
az he believed the property had cost
1t sum-, and j. that he informed him
cost only $4,000. and that the excess I.
5 to pay Thompson, through whom the Ql
rchase was made. for his services, etc.
i he relies upon the agreement as dI
Ting the rights OF the parties and ,
lclusiye of this controversy. DC
leld: j. An gen may deal directly L
n his principal, and sell TO him pro- &c
ty which he Is authorized TO buy for .
provided there is no deception or Is
cealment on his part; but ne must
Ike a full and fair disclosure OF all the al
Is and circumstances within his know
go in any way calculated 10 enable the
to judge OF the propriety OF the r..
(Mechem on Agency, sec. lC'
Amer. and Eng. Encyclo. Law, 1851. -,
In a controversy OF the kline the bur q
Of proof Is I'm the agent to show that ~
principal was fully informed OF all al
IS within his knowledge, and the per- he
fairness of the transaction. Id. IN
TanEla ~ DaIl.r - Dw-f. Al snaa-