The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-03-22
OPINION DAy IN /.
SUPREME: COURT d J |:|I !
Number 81 Interesting Decisions
Handed Down Yesterday by
Highest Tribunal. q
5NoTToWAY5 TREAS Y MATTER
County Wins iii Controversy
With Newport News Over
Question Of Taxes.
M

: { + L + + /
Question Of Taxes t,'s,
4 Action In d number OF Interestingly
n rases. Including that OK the nenricol
treasurersfip matter. reported else
where was announced IN tic Supreme
\ Court OF Appeals yesterday. IN the
ease ofithe Board Of Supervisors OF
Nuttoways County VS., Powell, from the
circuit Court OF Prince Edward rounty.5l
TIC opinion OF the court, written BY /
Judge stafford q. Syhttlc. revcrscs tho
decree sustaining tho demurrer and
the bill, and retnands tho case fota
further proceedings. Judge JAMES
Keith. president Of the court, anu
81 Judge II. II. Cnrdwell4 filed a dissenting
opinion, afllrning the decree Of the
Circuit Court OF PRIMO Edward but
granting leave to- the appellant to
amend Its blu should II desiru to do 80.
@ Judge White says: # NJ
What Court Says.
.'The court sconcurs In the dissenting
opinion of the president to be handed
downSin this case, except with respect
to the charges In the bill Involving
I the alleged failure Of the defendant lin
error, j . IL Powell, as treasurer OF Not
# toway county, to return with his do
8linq,lent lists the original INK tickcts
RI for each and all the items embraced
4 therein, and to account FOR Subsequent
BS collections alleged to have been made
96 by$hing on tax tickets Included In sua!i
Hi lists. 85s. n
I'VE nre OF opinion that the treasurer
4 WAS not entitled to receive credit by
any delinquent taxes until ana unless
tho orr ginal tax tickets were fled with
thc8clerk; and also that he is liabla
A for all moneys received by him on tax
8 tickets contained in dclinauont lists.
afi3 We are further Of opinion that the
rlnintiffsin error, the board Of super.f
vlsors Ia entitled TO naintain55the bill
IN tllia hErcc.#Epf the case; ana. upon
efercnce to II commissioner III chan
Gerry with regard to such tickets and
collections, and to hold the treasurer
Responsible, to the extent of the conn-
TVS interest thnroln, for all such tax
s tickets MS Mere actually collected by
hiln,%or which he ought to- have co 4
5lected blythe cxcrciac#of due dill gnnce.
4 We arc further Or opinion TINT SEQ
Z ton GLE. Virginia Codc, a 90 and TO
nHte sections, prevailing for the col
lection of delinquent taxes from tax
payers, apply onlyLsto cases In which
f tic lists have been returned by The
treasurer In good faith in conformity e
'tAh.ylh
5ss8S against a trcnsurer VIII o flas q ea- male.
#3s fcio. collected 4 tax ticket s included II
the delinquent lists. The board % O
supervisors can alone hold n treas
urer responsible for such derelictior
OF duty, so far Al the county eYy i
cone ernoA 4, rhe sinlu tes irpLk -li,, VA II,
application 10 such case n ey3as orr
remedies against delina,ient A ~ y n,.er +
81 and their properly hut none gu its
q dofaultlng treasure 5s$
Il ty,fi nil hrG trnn
III s55 urer aftcrS having rcturned certai'
taxes 4 as DELINQUENT, llected kn'n,
81 $&s OF y those and made no ssr urn . an
further that on tn e s. 8 Of paid sz y.
Of "a pcrs cent. instcnd OF 2 per cen
58s3J IN ne K ritl,.s opinion nflir1ntng the lie
&. cree Of the cirn,i Court S a 40
luminous one, covering about tftee
typewrltc ten pa s. =. 53
County Wins Case
5i38 The opinion OF the3icoilrt write
BY Judge George n 9 Harrison, 81 Ella 2
caso OF the Board of Il s upers lsors 4 3
sS Elizabeth City County vs.. the City.
n CIV port News sets aside the order 4
5sGs$3Ss the State Corporation ommission a.,
relnands he case. III s. Is a case rfiltr s
In the counts contendcd tina VII 1--we VI
a# 81 entitled to- all tho revenue e derive
from taxation upon the rolling ston
OF a public servicc corpora ton II ami
3s535 ton Elizabeth CT county5is \ he don
iclle OF tho railway b III ~ luest ion. Il u
Newport News and Old Point Railwa
and Electric Compa ny. The comlni
ii sion, after nscertainin & tho ass I
&$ value 81 property, contended tina tt
u same rule 3 taxing railway per
Ss.ss at s. lsa domicile did mot q pply to Gle
tricnlly propelled raj lway 8, and SO I'd
vided tho revenue betWeen tl.e8citysli
e e county; giving the county about s47,0
nnd tho city n about Is So 900. Fro
# this order$of$ the conmiss lon. lie Gov
n. Ri ty nppealpd. " The court In lts pint
lSI5i holds that tho county had ~ fiE
81 appeal in mn S notion against I
WIZ d city; that tho county ms the donlicl
j5$S 5S Of the corporation Is S8entit led to t
s$8 entiro taxation, ana 20 orders the COL
28 mission to amend Its 3 org es,.Ih ne e
$ss} "a z3& clsion is58nns interesting one, q q
means So 900 moro y yonno tor5! l1li Y
4 ii, Rehearing was denied In tho cnse
n Smiley VS., The Provident Life Ass
ciation,s from the Circuit Court 9 e
ls5 gusta county. At the January III q
4 III; the writ or crror formerly awarded At
this case, All action OF cjectment,, "
dismissed, ns improvidently award,
y upon tho ground that 5there Ind be
no ,linal s award { Iii concluding \
opinion refusing tito rehehring,
court says: FL 355S s .a1E
1--WE ara OF opinion that tho langua
8sS OF section 3i64, M amended does q
give az party In nh ne Ion OF ojectmt
tho right to have tho proruedings
5sss the cause reviewed. by this court VT
q final Judgment has been entered
sS the cause, s ssff5 MI ls5 M 4 S y
In Woody's Admin istratorG VS., DO
# man. from the Chancnry Court OF a
ia city Of Richmond, Judge Whittlo 5Wr
tho opinion OF tho court, which
firms tho ecree8 Of tho Chnnc cary Coz
5sS5 and sustains 4 the vhildtysof schaf
clAim to the proceeds OF policy
insurance. rho plaintllf sought to-
toin schaaf from collecting tho mol
| IL ! issued OF, tho lifo OF Woody for
benefit 8aof schaaf,l IS N'poly being