The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-15
El|llIPOR|
CASE DECIDED.
Corporation C ut Forbiddento Inter-.
fere With Police Board.
JUDGE WHlTTLE's FIRST OPINION
Handed Down in an Interesting Case in Which
the Appellate Court Reverses Its
Ruling-A Large Number
OF Decisions,
JUDGE WHITTLE'S FRS. OPINION.


large number of cases decided.
One of the most interesting OPINIONS
handed down from the laymens stano-E
point was that in Johnson ct ais VS..
sBarham, Judge, ct ais, upon a petltloll
for a writ of prohibition to the Corpora
ton Court of Newport News, which gre"
out of the much discussed wrangies DC
tween the Board of Police Commissioners
and former Chief-of-Polce S. j. Harwood.
The cases of Parsons VS.. Newman ana
Glenn VS.. Brown ct ais, appealed from Tue
Circuit Court Of 1Ienrco County ana
affirmed, involve some Interesting points
relating to the law governing the recoV-
cry of lands bought by the State tor de-
linquent taxes.
IN Richmond Ice Company VS.. Crystal
Ice Company, appealed from the Law ana
Equity Court of Richmond city ana re-
versed, the opinion clearly CONSTITUTES llie
contract between said companies.
The important question of the IlSnt 70
subrogaton as between partners was ipis
discussed in the opinion delivered ny
Judge White in tie case of Sands VS..
Durham, appealed from the Circult '-os''l
of Giles county and affirmed.
In Schrieber, Sons & Company vs.. the
Citizens Bank of Norfolk, appealed rom
the Law and Chancery Court OF Norlolh
and affirmed, the opinion lays down soi'ie
important rules regarding the rights aisu
remedies Of sub-contractors.
There are other decisions winch loilo%
under the various sub-heads III winch
much matter of interest to the par ana
the public may be found.
The Newport News Police Fight.
johnson ct ais vs. Barhan, Judge. &C
Upon a petition for a, writ OF proilp-
tion TO the Corporation Court of New
port News Opinion by Judge Keith 7.
This case grew out of the controversy
over the removal of Harwood ana the
appointment of Johnson as chief OF po-
lice of Newport News The published act
of the Legislature, charterinS the Guy OF
Newport News. provides for the riSht OF
appeal from the decision of the Board OF
Police Commissioners TO the Corporation
Court of said city, but in the enrolled
bill, as appears from d certificate OF the
Keeper of the Rolls of Virginia, the word
court does not appear.
AS to the right to supply this word
court the Court of Appeals held that
no jurisdiction has been conferred upon
the Corporation Court to entertain an APP
peal from the order of the Board of Po-
lice Commissioners removing S. j. Har-
wood from the Office of chief of police
In the Chancery Court proceedings there
was a demurrer to the bill by which juris-
diction of that court was challenged.
Without deciding how Ear a court OF
Cn3nCeTN WOULD nave necn JuSllileu III III
tertering to protect the right, or supposed
right, of S. ]. Harwood, pending the de-
termination of his appeal from the judg-
ment of custer rendered against him, it
is clear that the Chancery Court has no
jurisdiction to try the question of title.
| which has been passed upon by compe-
tent authority. from whose judgment
there can be no appeal.
A writ of prohibition is. therefore, is
sued to the Hastings Court of Newport
News. sitting as a court of chancarv. for
bidding it to take jurisdiction in the case
therein pending, OF Harwood VS.. johnson,
and the petitioners are TO recover their
costs in this behalf expended.
As to Recovery of Lands.
Parsons e Co. VS.. Newman e Co. From
Circuit Court Of Hcnrco county Opin-
ion by Judge Buchanan:
This is a case involving the recovery of
lands in Henrico county which had been
sold for taxes as provided by Sec. 666,
Code of 1887. The parties admit by their
pleadinss that all title to the lands, both
legal and equitable, is in the Common
wealth and that they have no rights
therein, except the right of redemption.
II was held that before they can carry
into d court OF equity under the allega-
tons of thu bill as amended to have a
cloud upon the title to the land re-
moved. they, or someone in their interest,
must have exercised the right OF redemp-
ton, for until that shall have been done
they have no interest in the land and no
right to subject it to their debts.
Decree Diminishing the bill and amended
bill and the petition and amended petit
ton, is affirmed without prejudice.
Delinquent Lands.
Glenn VS. Brown ct ais. From Circuit
Court of Henrco county. Opinion by
Judge Keith, p.
The defendants filed their bill in the
trial court alleging that they were the
owners of certain lands in HenrlcO
county, which formerly belonged to Ann
G. Kemp, and which had been returned
delinquent in the year 1899. In February,
1895, the property was purchased by the
Commonwealth at q sale for taxes, and
in July. 1895. one Mandlcbaum filed an
application. paid the taxes, etc.. and OBJ
taincd a decd from the clerk of said
county on March H. 1898.
| Joseph Il. Glenn, who purchased from
Mandlebaun,, filed q. demurrer and an
swcr to the bill. and after agreeing upon
certain facts, the cause was submitted.
and a decree was entered. which. among
other things. permitted the filing of an
amended bill making issuablc certain
matters therein mentioned. Wnlcn llstu
not been before presented by the plead
ings. From this decree Glenn appealed.
The Court of Appeals held that the
amendment permitted caused no delay
and was. therefore, properly granted, and
that the demurrer was properly over
ruled and that the decree setting aside
the deed from the clerk to Mandlebaum
was correct. holding that as Glenn did
not have the right to redeem the land,
the payment of any taxes. etc. by him
did not rebound to his benefit, butsonlN to
that of the party whose right it was to
| redeem. tscc Parsons vs.. Newman, just
decidedly
Construction Of Contract.
Richmond Ice Company VS.. CRYSTAL
Ice Company. From Law and Equity
Court of Richmond city. Opinion by
Judge Buchanan.
On December 1. 1895. an agreement was
entered into between the plaintiff ard de-
| PENDANT companies by which the latter
was to furnisi, the former SO many pounds
Of ice Il Year for u period of four years
at q certain price. Which was for the use
of the Mutnal4lce Delivery Company,
with which both the plaintiff and efend-
! ant companies have. contracts TO supply
s-Ss,s ~.