Norfolk Suburban Turnpike Company v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 962

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWhite
Citation56 L.Ed. 1082,32 S.Ct. 828,225 U.S. 264
PartiesNORFOLK & SUBURBAN TURNPIKE COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Docket NumberNo. 962
Decision Date10 June 1912

225 U.S. 264
32 S.Ct. 828
56 L.Ed. 1082
NORFOLK & SUBURBAN TURNPIKE COMPANY, Plff. in Err.,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

No. 962.
Submitted April 8, 1912.
Decided June 10, 1912.

Page 265

Mr. Nathaniel T. Green for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Samuel W. Williams, Attorney General of Virginia, and Mr. J. D. Hank for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

On April 24, 1911, as authorized by the laws of Virginia, the judge of the circuit court of Princess Anne county, Virginia, of his own motion, appointed three persons, styled viewers, to examine and report upon the condition of three turnpikes, situated in the county and owned by the plaintiff in error. The viewers reported the turnpikes to be in bad condition, and made recommendations as to the work necessary to be done to put them in good order. The turnpike company appealed from the report of the viewers to the circuit court. On the hearing of the appeal various motions were made on behalf of the turnpike company, to the overruling of which exception was taken, and which will be hereafter referred to, and an order was

Page 266

entered as authorized by a statute, suspending the taking of tolls on the turnpikes until they were put in proper repair. The effect of the order, however, was suspended by the making of an application of the supreme court of appeals of Virginia for the allowance of an appeal and a writ of error to the order of the circuit court. The application, however, was rejected by an order reading as follows:

'In the supreme court of appeals, held at the Library Building in the city of Richmond, on Thursday, the 11th day of January, 1912.

'The petition of the Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Company, a corporation, for a writ of error and supersedeas to a judgment or order entered by the circuit court of Princess Anne county, on the 12th day of December, 1911, in certain proceedings, pending in said court, whereby the collection of tolls by the said petitioner on certain sections of a turnpike located in said county was suspended, having been maturely considered and the transcript of the record of the judgment or order aforesaid seen and inspected, the court being of opinion that the said judgment or order is plainly right, doth reject said petition.'

A writ of error addressed to the supreme court of appeals of Virginia was then allowed by the president of that court. It was therein recited that the supreme court of appeals of Virginia had 'refused a writ of error, thereby affirming said judgment of said circuit court of Princess Anne county, Virginia.' The same judicial officer also approved the bond and signed the citation. The commonwealth of Virginia, however, was named as the obligee in the bond, and the citation was directed to that state as the 'defendant in error.' The attorney general of the state, who states in his brief that he inadvertently signed as 'commonwealth's attorney of Princess Anne county,' acknowledged service of the citation and entered the appearance of the commonwealth in this court 'without ad-

Page 267

mitting that the commonwealth of Virginia is a proper party, and reserving all rights.'

Appearing for the defendant in error, the attorney general of Virginia moves to dismiss the writ of error, 'because this court has no jurisdiction,' or to affirm the order and judgment below 'because the questions on which jurisdiction depend are so frivolous as not to need further argument.'

The motion to dismiss is based upon the contention that the appearance in this court is a qualified one, and 'that the appeal was improvidently awarded in this case, that the commonwealth of Virginia has nowhere in the proceedings been made a party, and is not now a proper party in this case.' But although the commonwealth of Virginia was not named as a party to the proceedings initiated by the judge of the circuit court, it is not claimed that those...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Marsh v. State of Alabama, No. 114
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1946
    ...L.Ed. 1330; Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sanford, 164 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 198, 41 L.Ed. 560; Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U.S. 264, 32 S.Ct. 828, 56 L.Ed. 1082; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U.S. 279, 26 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed. 192, and cases cited on pages 293—295 of 199 ......
  • Clark v. Williard, No. 449
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1934
    ...49, 50, 46 L.Ed. 117; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U.S. 173, 175, 25 S.Ct. 654, 655, 49 L.Ed. 1000; Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U.S. 264, 268, 32 S.Ct. 828, 56 L.Ed. 1082; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission, 226 U.S. 99, 101, 33 S.Ct. 78, 79, 57 L.Ed. 138; Georgia Ry......
  • Pipe Line Co v. Calvert Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co v. Calvert, MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1954
    ...Telegraph Co. v. Crovo, 220 U.S. 364, 366, 31 S.Ct. 399 (400), 55 L.Ed. 498; Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 225 U.S. 264, 269, 32 S.Ct. 828 (830), 56 L.Ed. 1082. Of course the limit of time for applying to this Court was from the date when the writ of certiorar......
  • Hartford Accident Indemnity Co v. Bunn, No. 333
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1932
    ...(114 U. S. 127, 5 S. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 117), they might have sued out a writ of error at once.' Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 268, 269, 32 S. Ct. 828, 830, 56 L. Ed. 1082. The question was: To which state court should the writ of error run? This Court said: 'The dif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Marsh v. State of Alabama, No. 114
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1946
    ...L.Ed. 1330; Covington & L. Turnpike Road Co. v. Sanford, 164 U.S. 578, 17 S.Ct. 198, 41 L.Ed. 560; Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U.S. 264, 32 S.Ct. 828, 56 L.Ed. 1082; Donovan v. Pennsylvania Co., 199 U.S. 279, 26 S.Ct. 91, 50 L.Ed. 192, and cases cited on pages 293—295 of 199 ......
  • Clark v. Williard, No. 449
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1934
    ...49, 50, 46 L.Ed. 117; Schlosser v. Hemphill, 198 U.S. 173, 175, 25 S.Ct. 654, 655, 49 L.Ed. 1000; Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U.S. 264, 268, 32 S.Ct. 828, 56 L.Ed. 1082; Louisiana Navigation Co. v. Oyster Commission, 226 U.S. 99, 101, 33 S.Ct. 78, 79, 57 L.Ed. 138; Georgia Ry......
  • Pipe Line Co v. Calvert Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co v. Calvert, MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 8, 1954
    ...Telegraph Co. v. Crovo, 220 U.S. 364, 366, 31 S.Ct. 399 (400), 55 L.Ed. 498; Norfolk & Suburban Turnpike Co. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 225 U.S. 264, 269, 32 S.Ct. 828 (830), 56 L.Ed. 1082. Of course the limit of time for applying to this Court was from the date when the writ of certiorar......
  • Hartford Accident Indemnity Co v. Bunn, No. 333
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1932
    ...(114 U. S. 127, 5 S. Ct. 799, 29 L. Ed. 117), they might have sued out a writ of error at once.' Norfolk & S. Turnpike Co. v. Virginia, 225 U. S. 264, 268, 269, 32 S. Ct. 828, 830, 56 L. Ed. 1082. The question was: To which state court should the writ of error run? This Court said: 'The dif......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT