The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-11-22

"A LEVY FOR A SEWER TAX
Right Of a City to Make Such Is
Upheld-Soine Other Cases
Of Mitch Interest.

The Supreme Court Of the State OF VIZ
gina yesterday handed down many oplh-
Ions III cases reviewed BY IT. Among the
number wero the following:
w. O. Adams vs. the city OF Ronnohei
From, tho Hastings Court Of the Clty q
Roanoke; opinion by Judge Caro"el.'
affirming the Judgment OF the lower court.
This case is one or great interest to every
municipality, involving tho right Of
city to levy an assessment upon PROP
erty owners to meet tho Cost OF
sewer construction In the sectioh
Of the city in which the property SO as
sesscd Is located The contentious OF the
appellant and the courts ruling thereon
are summarized In tho concluding Pa'a-
graph as follows:
"That the plaintiff IN error had inc NJ
tice required BY the statute and that the
statute Is not In conflict with the FOUR
tecnth amendment to the Constitution. as
interpreted by this and other courts, We
have already shown. The record dis
closes no evidence introduced BY him 70
show that his property was not benefit t,,1
at all by the improvement, or that the
assessment against 1t la In excess OF tle
special benefits derived from the improve
mont, while quite number or Wltn ',ss'
es we're introduced In behalf OF the city,
and all concur in the statement thnt inc
assessment against the property IS not
in excess OF the benefits received Upon
the whole we are Of opinion that the
Judgment OF the Hastings Court OF the
oity of Roanoke should be affirmed.
The opinion In the case IS volumlnous
one covering twenty-one typewriter
pages.
Sanger Tvs. c. and Q.
In the case Of Samuel L. Sanger VS..
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Com
| -pany, from the CIRCUIT Court OF augusta
county. the opinion Of the court, deliV-
cred by Judge r. II. Cardwell. reVerses
| the Judgment of the trial court and re-
mands the case for trial
This action was brought by Sanger to
| recover of the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
way $500 damages alleged to have been
sustained by the plaintiff by reason OF
| the killing of three horses by train.
| In his declaration plaintiff fixed the value
Of the three horses killed at s!55. and
| damages at $40 for being deprived OF the
| use of said horses making $500, and ayers
that the killing Of the horses was due
to negligence Of the railroad company
in not maintaining fence at the point
| where the horses We're killed. The de-
| PENDANT demurred to the declaration ON
two grounds: That the declaration does
! not aver that plaintiff was the owner
Of the lard at the place at which the
I horses entered upon the railroad ana
that the provisions of section 1858 OF the
Code were solely for the benefit and pro.
lection Of adjoining landowners; that the
defendant was under no obliga tons to
fence its tract: at any, point where me
same adjonea public publ ~ asnI Gonurr rne
/ whereupon the,'plaintiff appealed.
The court In * itst: opinion, holds that
| the declara ton sets out a good cause OF
action and that the demurrer thereto
Should have been overruled. The 1ndg-
ment Of the Circuit Court is, therefore.
| reversed and annulled, the demurrer over
| ruled and the cause rernanded.
Zirlzle VS.. Southern.
IN the case of Abram zirkle vs. the
Southern Railway. from the County Court
| OF Shenandoah. tho opinion Of the court
| Is written BY Judge Whitt!e and afflrms
the Judgment OF the lower court. ms
is writ Of error to an order OF the
court condemning certain land OF zirkle $
for railway purposes. The plaintiff In
error denied the jurisdiction Of the court
FOR reasons set forth. One OF these Is
that the resolution provided Tor IN the
statutes was never adopted; second, tina,
the Southern Railway made no attempt
to purchase the land In question before
instituting condemnation proceedings
The court rules that the first objection
has no application In this case, ana ina
the second is not sustained ny the cyl
dence. The court holds that the Legis!a
ture has expressly delegated TO railwa.
companies the power of eminent domain
and that In the exercise OF that power
they represent the sovereignty OF tht
State and decide within certain Limitation:
what and how much land they VIII con
denim for their purposes. WITHIN lhess
Limitations ..ar discretion Is practically
absolute. The courts may supervise tht
exercise Of that power, but they cahno
invade the bounds set BY the l.eglslA
ture. railway built for the purpose 0
reaching an Industrial enterprise, as y
this case, Is for public use. ana w
company Is entitled 10 exercise the poWel
of eminent domain N acaun,ns ptupsi, :
necessary for It's construction, proVlulnl
the general public has the right 70 use y
Finally the court holds that the orde
complained of is without error ana Y
affirmed.
Reed and Mccormick VS.. Gold
In Feed and Mccorallck vs.. Thomas
Cold, receiver. from the Circuit Court .
Clarke county, the opinion IS written .,
Judge Keith. president Of the court, an
afrlrms the Circuit Court. ing op,,',ut
| Is volutninous one Of twenty type"tit
ten pages. This case Grows OUT OF u
| land boom and subscriptions to IAN
company the defendant being SUED as
delinquent stockholder of the BerryVlil
Land and Improvement Company ny o.
receiver, Inc plulnt lll III lHo ~ 'S'''", ''
Gold served written notice on Reea an
Mccormick, In obedience to the order !;
the court In chancery suit. that no w 70
ask for i,d gment for S4l0OS. The delend
ants dc -. FED to the notice. stating tire
causes o. demurrer, The court holds tha
the demurrer In the case was proper
oyerruled, ho!dir.~r-that notion TOT
judgement under Ine statute is an actio
at law, where notice takes the plae
of II writ and declaration. the notlc
| sufficiently describes and sets out IN
cause for action. Tho other ground 70
demurrer is equally without merit. Ii
\ learned judge carefully consldered Q uoa
! eli other technical points imposed by ~
\ plaintiff In error, and with ample autho,
/ ities to sustain him, dismlsses eaoh !
! turn. Concluding his very exhaMsuy
/ and learned opinion, the judge conclnae:
} '.That the court rendered Judgment upo
/ the demurrer to Tho evidence, In favnr
! the defendant in error Is also ass'ane
| as error, We have considered at eNg.
the questions OF law arising upon y
! record, and do not care TO ProloMR W