The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-11-24
RARE ACTION OF
SUPREME COURT.
Reverses Itself in Maia, ETC., v. Eas-
tern State Hospital.
VICTORY FOR COMMONWEALTH
Its Public Corporations Not Liable For
Negligence of officials or En-
plOycs-Ground Rents IN
Virginia - Summary.

state supreme Court, ana several among
the opinions rendered are Of more than
ordinary interest.
! None is more important to the Com
monwealth than that in the case of Maia' 5
| Administrator vs.. the Directors Of the
Eastern State Hospital. from the Circuit
Court OF the City Of Richmond. invoiy-
| ing the liability Of public corporations Of
| the State which are engaged In the exer-
| else or administration of governmental
functions for the negligence Of officials
| or employees of such institutions. The
| case Wss decided once before Dy the Su-
preme Court, in Maia's favor, but Attor-
ney-Generai Montague I'll d a petition for
rehear.ng which yesterday evcntuated
in the Supreme Court reversing Itself
one Of the rare instances of such action
by the Court. Judge Buchanan delivered
the opinion. Judge Harrison dssented
from it IN toto.
This is an action OF trespass on the case
TO recover damages for the death Of the
plaintiffs intestate alleged 10 have been
caused by the negligence Of the defend
ant. CT It's agents. in requiring the intes-
tate, whilst a patient and inmate Of de-
PENDANTS hospital. 10 dig and excavate
in the side Of an embanlment. the prop
erty OF the defendant, without providing
props or supports 10 prevent the over
hanging earth from falling upon him.
Held: Under the authorities, and espe-
cialiy under the recent case OF Phillips W.
Rector * University Of Virginia, / Su-
preme Court Reporter, that the defen-
dant is a public corporation. governed
81. uptr
clusvely as an agency OF the State for
the protection Of society and FOR the pro-
motion of the best interests Of the unfor-
tunate people Of the Commonwealth Of
insane or dis0rdered minds, and that
action will not lie against it for the in
jury complained Of.
The defendant being a public corpora
ton. an agency OF the State exercising
exclusively governmental functions, 1t Is
not liable for the injuries complained OF
in the declaration.
GROUND RENTS ~ VIRGINIA.
in the case OF Willis executors VS.. the
Commonwealth, appealed from the Hust-
ings Court OF Richmond Judge Rely
banded down an interesting opinion touch
ing the subject OF ground rents in Nlr-
ginia, holding that the lower court erred
error from the payment oil taxes described
in their motion, and entering judgment
so generating the plaintiffs In error.
GTond rents, The opinion says, While
not common in this State, are yet recoS-
niled as valid.
\ rent charge or ground rent is held
90 be real estate and subject TO all its
incidents. Ii descends on the death OF the
owner TO his heirs or his deyisee. and IS
subject 10 curtosy and dover Therefore,
IS such rents are in law realty and not
personally. the entry OF the ground rents
in controversy upon the Personal Prop
erty book by the Commissioner Of the
Revenue as a charge against the executors
Of the decedent, II liable 10 taxation. was
improper and should have been stricken
therefrOm under the motion of the plain
tiI i'm eror.
The opinion proceeds: THE question
then arises, whether the ground rents are
under the law taxable as real estate. and
this depends upon the further inquiry.
whether the Legislature has made tine
necessary provision for their assessment
Tor the purposes Of taxation. 1t has not
done so in terms"
The constitution and legislative enact
ments are quoted where reference is made
10 the taxation of personal and real
prcaerty-Article TO- sec /; chap. p of
The code: section 40 OF the code. sec
tons 48l. 4Sf 80. AZ 46i $50 and i66. The
opinion holds that the Legislature. In en-
acting these statutes, had in view only
lands and lots as PECULIARLY understood
and not IN mind such real estate as a rent
charge or ground rent. They contain no
provision Tor the assessment of the value
OF an estate Of this character In real
property, nor any language that can be
80 construed. THIS kind OF estate in land
is separate and distinct from the land it.
self and is clearly not embraced within
the provisions OF the said statutes
Whether the omission was intentional or
unintentiOnal. the result Is the same. IL
Is not the province or within the power
of the court TO make the assessment.
80 property can De assessed with taxes
Until the Legislature has made proper
provision for this purpose. Na.-Tenn. II.
Co. Y. Washington County, 80 Graft. Al;
and New York, etc. r. Co. Y. Supervisors,
% Va. Col
The value Of the estate In the ground
rent. the opinion points out. is not the
amount Of the annual rent but the value
of that-the corpus or principal-which
produce the rent, of which IL IS the fruit
or product But untl the Legislature
Las seen tit 10 provide for its taxation and
prescribed how its value shall be ascer-
tanned Il cannot be assessed with taxes.
MR.. WISE NOT IN CONTEMPT.
An opinion was handed down by Judge
Keith in the case Of George Il. Wise
against the Commonwealth on a writ Of
error
The facts are that Mr.. Wise was coun-
sci in "a case that was set for hearing on
the date mentioned but being engaged
IN case in the Police Court Of Richmond
that consumed more time than he antic-
pated. Mr.. Wise was unable to reach the
County Court at the hour for which the
case was set. lie so informed the Coun-
~ Court and asked for a slight delay.
The police court case was concluded aud
when Mr.. Wise repaired 10 the County
Court and gave his reasons for being late,
he was fined so Tor contempt. An APP
peal was taken and the case went to the
supreme Court. The opinion is as fol-
lows:
We are Of opinion that the facts GER
titled do not warrant the Judgment.
| There is nothing 10 the Facts stated TO
| eve color 10 the suspicion that In what
| he did plaintiff in error Intended the
slightest contempt Of or disrespect To the
! lawful authority Of the County Court. II
is true that the ease was fixed for trial
the County Court with his consent
and IL is true that M subsequently made
an engagement which compelled him TO
make a choce between duties. both OF
which ne could not at the same time per-
orm. but 1t appears that, he IN good
Attn. entered upon the trial OF the case
the police court in the reAson.oie ex-