Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-11-04
The court says:

The court says:
The provision of law en- f,, n, tha,
aiiecl this question are found in sec
tion 3Zl4 ana 32l5 of the Code.
section 32li. so tar as applicable to
TINS inns case, provides that ANY action at
NV or sun IN equity except where 1t is
otherWise specially provided may be
brought III any county or corporation:
FIRST, wherein any of the defendants
reside.
seventh. If a Judge of a circuit
court be Interested in a case. witch
but for such interest, would be proper
ior the jurisdiction of his court the ac-
ZION or suit may be brought in any
county or corporation i'll an adjoining
circuit"
BY section 32l5 of the Code IAN .ac
ZION may be brought in any county or
corporation wherein the cause of ac-
tion, or any part thereof, arose, al
though none of ,he defendants reside
therein. subject to the limitations pre-
sclibed by section 1920 of the Code.
Under the provision of these sections
the judge of IL circuit court may sue
The defendant in the county or corpora
ton in which the latter resides. or in
which the cause of action. or any part
thereof, arose. or in any county or cor
poration in an adjoining circuit, unless
the word may in the seventh clause
of section 3214 be construed as impera-
tive and not permissive, as IL it were
written shall or may only" as is
commended by the counsel of the de-
PENDANT In error and as was held by the
trial court.
There is nothing. as 1t seems to us.
in the clause under consideration, or in
its context or in the revisions which
our laws have undergone to show il
was the intention of the law making
power to use the word may" in the
clause in question in the sense of may
only"
If the construction insisted upon had
no other effect than to prevent Il judge
from suing and being sued in his own
court, and thereby did AVA with the
necessity of removing the cause to some
court of which he was not the Judge or
having some other circuit judge hold
the court for him and hear the case
there would be much more force in the
contention. But that is not the only
result that would follow. Such n con-
struction would take away the jurisdic-
ton OF courts other than his own
which. but for such construction,
would have Jurisdiction of the case. 1t
would prevent circuit judge in such
Il case from suing or being sued in any
corporation or other court in any coun-
" or corporation in his circuit which
might otherwise have jurisdiction of
the case. If i'm the case under consid-
Grafton the debt or demand asserted
had been against two persons, one of
whom resided In Shenandoah county
and the other in the city of Richmond
upon cause OF action which arose in
the city of Lynchburg. or if the judge
with another who resided In Richmond,
was liable upon n cause of action which
arose in Lynchburg, no action or suit
could be brought in any court in the
judges circuit nor i'm the city of Rich
mond. nor in the city OF Lynchburg,
but could ONLY he brought in some court
in Il circuit adjonin~ the 18th circuit.
What reason there in the cases
supposed why the actions or suits
should not be brought in some court in
Richmond or Lynchbrug? Yet il the
word may" must be construed as
may only" actions or suits could only
be brought in an adioininp circuit.
We are of opinion that the Circuit
Court of Shenandoah Count has iuris-
diction of tho case and that the de-
murrer to the plea ought to have been
sustained. Reversed.