Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-11

The petition of Henry Bailey set
lorth that for some alleged violation of
the municipal ordinances of the city.
oil College Park lie was sentenced BY
the Mayor to serve term of six
months in the county chain-gang of
sutton county: that after the imposi-
tloH ol thlS sentence, which was wholly
unauthorized by law, the marshal of
mat city delivered the plaintiff into the
custody OF the superintendent of The
cnain gang. who confined and kept the
plaintiif at work thereon for a period
Oh more than five months; and that
the acts and doH9S of said superin-
tchdent in thus combining this petition
cr at hard labor in said chain-gang
was done in obedience to instructions
ISSUED to him by the county authori-
ties of said county," The petition was
dismissed on demurrer, and the plain
tiff excepted.
The court says:
The only question for decision is
whether or not Il county is liable In
damages for a tort of the character
committed upon the plaintiff in error.
We are quite clear that it is not. That
"a municipal corporation is not liable
for the torts of policemen or other ofli-
GERS engaged in the discharge of the
duties imposed on them by law is now
q part Of our statute law. codified from
decisions of this court. Pol. Code, Sec
ton IA. The principle upon which the
cases referred TO were based is OBJ
viously applicable to like torts commit
ted by county officials. Aside from
this. it is also in the Code expressly
provided that "a county is not liable
to suit for any cause of action unless
made SO by statute" I'D, Section BAD;
and there is in this State no statute
rendering a county liable for any such
cause of action as that set forth in
the present petition. The question OF
the liability of U county for torts com
mitted by its officers was fully dis
cussed in the case of Wildwood V. De-
kalb Co. See the opinion of Mr.. JUS
tice Cobb and the authorities therein
cited. Counsel for the plaintiff i'll err
ror sought to bring this case within
the ruling announced in Bariield V. Ma
con Co. (Ga.), following the decision in
Smith V. Floyd Co, in which it was
held that, constituting the constitution
of 1877 and the Code together. right
OF action exists against Il county for
damaging private property for public
uses in constructing the approaches to
n county bridge. thereby elevating the
roadway above an adjacent lot, so as
to hinder access to the lot from the
road" These cases. however, turned
upon the Constitutional right of per-
sons whose property is taken or dam
aged for public uses to have just and
adequate compensa ton for the same,
and the corresponding liability which
would necessarily attach when the TAX
ing or damaging was done by a county
in its capacity as Il public corporation.
Manlfestly. the trainers of the Consti-
tuition contemplated that counties. in
making public improvements. would
take or damage private property and
accordingly the Constitutional provis.
ion above referred to was held to "ie.
ate a right irrespective of express leg
islative enactment. to bring an action
against county in such cases. The
whole subject is fully discussed by
Chief Justice Blecl<ley in the case cited
from So Ga. and therefore need not
now be further elaborated. The pres
ent case is of an altogether different
character. While it is true that the
Constitution declares that mo person
shall be deprived of life. liberty, or pro-
perty except by due process of law"
there rs HUrhfTg III rhIt Instrument
which either expressly or by implica-
ton imposes upon counties a liability
for the tortious acts OF any officer COM
mitted in violation of this provision of
our fundamental law. Judgment af-
hrmed.