Blanton v. Southern Fertilizing Co.

Citations

• 77 Va. 335
• 1883 Va. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction-Circuit court of Richmond.-This court has chancery-jurisdiction only in cases where it may be necessary or proper to make certain enumerated officers or corporations defendants. The commissioner of agriculture is not one of these.</p> <p>2. Joint Suit.-Such suit may be brought by two or more of a class, for benefit of all similarly affected. Bull v. Read, 13 Gratt. 86. By some decisions in other states such joint suit must be brought by such persons to avoid multiplicity of suits and irreparable damage. McClung v. Livesay, 7 West Va. 329.</p> <p>3. Jurisdiction-Equity courts-Public officers.-Chancery has jurisdiction to enjoin illegal acts of an officer attempted colore officii. A suit against an officer is not necessarily a suit against the state&emdash;e. g., a suit to restrain one from doing unlawful acts under color of an executive office&emdash;such as any illegal acts of the commissioner of agriculture.</p> <p>4. Legislature-Commissioner of agriculture-Tags.-Chapter 249, Acts 1876-7, establishing the department of agriculture and empowering the commissioner of agriculture to make all necessary rules and regulations for carrying out the intentions of the act, does not authorize him to levy a tax upon manufacturers and sellers of fertilizers for the purpose of raising money for the use of the department, in the shape of the charge on tags, as required by Rule No. 2, or of any charge oh such tags.</p> <p>5. Idem-Idem-Tags without charge.-But the commissioner hath power to enforce the use of a tag to be attached to each package of fertilizer, showing that the same is registered in the department, without any charge therefor.</p>