The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1899-01-13

Agricultural Department VIII Soiho ""'
OF the puzzle treasury, but must come
from the fees derived from the Inspection
of fertilizers.
Land Grabbers' Case
In the case Of D0oley vs. Christian
Judge buchanan wrote the opinion.
This is an application for a mandamus
IN compeu the clerk Of the Hastings Count
of the city Richmond TO accept the sum
rendered by the petitiOued under section
ga of the Code as amended by acts 1872
Is. D. 5l3. in redemption Of "a certain par
eel Of land sold for non-payment OF
taxes. When the petitioner applied 10
the clerk to redeem his land for which
an application to purchase had been
made by one Glenn. the unpaid taxes
together with interest and costs amount
ed 10 S277 and the penalty ana costs
which had accrued by reason of Glenns
application amounted 20 the sum of Sy.0S.
The petitioner tended s2.77, but the clerk
refused TO accept anything less than
S9O3. The petitioner asked for man
damus TO compel the clerk 10 accept the
2.T. The clerk based his refusal 10 re-
ceive the sum rendered for the redenD-
ton Of the land upon two grounds:
First, that the amount rendered did not
include the penalty and costs which had
cation OF Glenn 10 purchase the land
from the Commonwealth under section
66s Of the Code as amended by acts OF
1878. Second. that the petitioner was
neither the owner OF thte land) nor his
heir, assign or creditor. and was there
fore not entitled to redeem.
The court says: If the Commissioner
Of the Revenue and the treasurer had
done their duty under these sections,
such a condition Of things as exist I'm
this case would not have arisen But for
the Commissioner misconduct I'm trans
ferring the land on his handbook from
the name OF the petitioner 10 that Of
Vaughan, the treasurer would not have
been engaged in the folly Of buying for
the State lands which n had purchased
six years before and which had neither
been redeemed nor purchased from II.
The land would still DO on the land
books, as e ought 10 be, I'm the name Of
the petitioner, and II Il We're would any
one doubt that he was the previous own
or referred 10 in section s6i and had the
right 10 redeem? How then can he be
deprived OF that character and that right
by n violation Of law on the part Of the
officers of the State?'
The court holds that the petitioner
had the right 10 redeem the land upon
the terms bifNfiiNrN IN section NDf OF inc
Code as amended. and the clerk had no
right to demand Of him the payment Of
the costs. fees and penalty which section
666 Of the Code. as amended. provides.
shall be collected for the benefit Of the
party who has filed an application 10 pur-
chase under that section. such costs.
fees and penalty can only be collected
from the party redeemng where the an
plication 10 purchase Is filed i'm accord
ance with that section"
The prayer Of the petitioner IS granted.
Summary OF Proceedings.
Judge James Keith-Spiller VS.. Wells
Law ana Chancery Court city OF Mo-
folk Reversed.
Hashers admx. vs. Hasher's admr
Law and Equity Court City Of Richmond. |
Reversed
Grand Fountain T.. o. T. r. VS.. vii
son. Corporation Court City Of Lynch- |
Bailey VS.. McCance. Hastings Court
City Of Petersburg Affirmed.
Bradshaw VS.. BrattOn Circuit Court OF !
county Affirmed
Marye. AuultOr ys. Board OF Agrtcul- 4
ture. Circuit Court Of City Of Richmond !
Reversed
Hotchkiss, trustee VS.. Afiddlekauf Of 1
ais. Circuit Court OF Rockingham County !,
Judge John W. Riely-Hoge & Hutchin- !
son vs. Turner. for &c Circuit Court OF
Augusta. Reversed
Moore -. Triplett. Circuit Court Of
Shenandoah County. Affirmed
Mercantile Cooperative Bank vs.. {
Brown and others Circuit Court OF Page
County. Affirmed.
judge X. II. Cardwell-Buildine. Light
and Water Co VS. Fray et ais Corpora .
ton Court city OF Buena Vista. Re
rersed.
Cannon ct ais vs.. Commonwealth Cor
)oratlon Court City OF Norfolk Reversed
Judge John A .Buchanan-Tyson VS.
Williamson. Judge Of the Circuit Court
II Rockbridge County reversed.
CARRIER Is. Bresee a Sons Judgment of J
he Law and Equity Court city OF Rich
nOnd affirmed.
Warng vs.. Waring. Decree 81 the Cir
uit Court OF Essex County affirmed.
Bank. sc. vs.. Peed q Son. Judgment OF
ne Law and Chancery Court OF the
lily Of Norfolk. Affirmed.
DOOley vs.. Christian. clerk Writ OF !
Iandamus awarded.
Judge Geo. NJ Harrison-Littell vs..
julius Lansburg Co. Circuit Court OF
alexandria county Reversed.
Commercial Bank We Cabell ~ ais. !