Dunnington v. Ford

• Decision Date: 05 February 1885
• Citation: 80 Va. 177
• Parties: DUNNINGTON v. FORD.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

80 Va. 177

DUNNINGTON v. FORD.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

February 5, 1885

Error to judgment of corporation court of Lynchburg, rendered August 4th, 1884, in the suit of James A. Ford, plaintiff against V. G. Dunnington, treasurer of the city of Lynchburg ordering, for reasons going to the merits, the Auditor of Public Accounts to issue his proper warrant for the payment to said Ford of the sum of $526.05 as of June 7th, 1884 which was wrongfully collected, upon his delivering to the Auditor for cancellation, the coupons offered in evidence.

Opinion states the case.

Attorney-General F. S. Blair, for the plaintiff in error.

Kirkpatrick & Blackford, for the defendant in error,

OPINION

LACY, J.

This case is brought to this court under the act of the General Assembly of March 12th, 1884, giving appeals to this court as of right to the Commonwealth in all cases arising under the acts of January 14th and January 26th, 1882, entitled respectively an act to provide for the more efficient collection of the revenue, & c.

The amount involved in this controversy is $526.05.

This suit is brought under the provisions of the act of January 26th, 1882, as amended by the act of March 13th, 1884. Acts 1883-'84, page 527.

For reasons commending themselves to the legislative mind, the proceedings authorized by the said acts were provided by the legislature for the benefit of her creditors holding genuine coupons detached from genuine bonds of the State, which were receivable for taxes due the State, and for the protection of the State against claims of the holders of alleged fraudulent coupons. The State can be sued only by her consent, and when a remedy by suit against the State, or any of the officers of the State, is provided, those creditors who seek to avail themselves of its benefits must be content to follow its provision with exact strictness--there is no authority to sue the State, except as provided by the law. And it is the duty of the courts to see to it that the legislative will is not disregarded, and that when proceedings are prescribed by the act, they be followed according to its terms.

It would be difficult to draw a line which would mark the distinction between material and immaterial departures from the prescribed methods, and it should not be presumed that any prescription was made which was not regarded as essential by the legislature.

The legislature has provided...