Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-02-11
TIE NEWS OF NORFOLK ON PAGES D 56&Z
ner. his county. or any part OF ii, un.

ner, ms county, or any part OF 1t, I'M
der PAIN" ETC.. meaning his office
There is no question OF fraudulent pur-
pose in the case. The question is one
of policy and safety to the public In
terests, and that is highly important.
There can be no doubt that sheriff
| may employ a deputy or other private
person to assist him. but he cannot
delegate his authority to another. as
That would tend TO injure the public
service. The public has an interest in
the proper performance of their duties
| By public officers, and would be preiu-
diced by agreements tending to impair
an ollcers efficiency, or in any way
interfere with OF disturb the due eXecu-
ton OF the duties of the office. The
office of sheriff and tax collector Is one
OF public confidence and fidelity to a
pubic trust, and cannot be a matter
| OF bargain and sale. II requires good
ta1th and duty. Under the present con-
tract the duty, the power. and the
control of the tax collectors office are
placed in the hands of the defendant.
True. the sherifrs bond is liable for
the amount OF collecttble taxes, hut
the public trustjand confidence are not
secured by his bond. AS to the valid
ny OF contracts. the law makes no dis
JUNCTION between acts mala in Sc and
acts mala prohibta or wrong simply
because they are prohibited by sta
tute. When statute intends to pro-
hiDit an act, it must be held that its
violation is illegal. without regard to
ttfu reason of the Inhibition, or the
| morality or immortality of the act; and
| mat Is so, without regard to the ignor-
nnce OF the parties as TO the prohibits
ing statute. The law would be false
ITSELF il it allowed n contract to be
enforced in the courts against the in
tent and express provision OF the
law.
The PLAINTIFFS counsel in this court
then took the position that, If the con-
tract was Illegal and unenforceablc,
the defendant had waived 1t by not
pleading the illegality. and by submit
ting to an account on the merits OF the
controversy. That is true generally,
under the code practice. but there are
some matters that the party cannot
waive, and the authorities are against
the proposition in such eases. When
an action is instituted in q court which
has no jurisdiction of the subject mat
ter the court will not proceed to do n
vain thing but will stop, without wait
ing for q plea denying its authority to
proceed. SO, under our constitution
and statutes, no personal contract of
II married woman VIII be enforced
against her with a few eXceptions), if
the court can discover in any part of
her record that she is married. al
though her coverture is not pleaded.
The principle is that. when the court
discovers that it Is invoked to aid in
enforcing an Illegal transaction. the
court eX nero motu will withdraw its
hand. The common law was provident
In respect to public interests. 1t would
not allow the sale of an office to be
the foundation of an action. because 1t
was against public policy Such a sale
was and is invalid, because the law
could not know in advance whether
the grantee or bargainee would be
competent TO discharge the trust in the
public interest. For the above reasons
we feel it to be our duty to declare
that the judgment of the superior
court was erroneous. Reversed.