Holladay v. Auditor

Citations

• 77 Va. 425
• 1883 Va. LEXIS 74

Syllabus

<p>1. Chancery'Court of Richmond --Construction of statutes—Constitutional.—In the sense of the acts approved 7th April, 1870, 18th May, 1870, and 1st April, 1873, that court is a “city court.” The last, providing that the judges of the city and corporation courts of this commonwealth shall be paid out of the treasury of their respective corporations, is constitutional, has not been repealed, and applies to the judge of the chancery court of the city of Richmond, no part of whose salary is payable out of the state treasury.</p> <p>2. Idem—Idem.—The nature and extent of the jurisdiction of those courts, is, of itself, no criterion whereby to determine their character as to whether they are “ state ” or “ city courts.” The constitution itself determines that.</p> <p>3. Statutes—Repeal by implication.—The law does not favor repeal by implication, unless the repugnance is quite plain, and then only to the extent of the repugnance.</p> <p>4. City Judge—Salary—Anmtal estimates—Repeal.—The fact that the auditor has always included in his estimates and reports, an amount sufficient to pay that judge’s salary, and that the legislature has always appropriated a sum in gross for the “ officers of the government,” out whereof the salary has always been paid, is evidence of the treasurer’s disregard of the act of 1st April, 1873, but not of an intention on the part of the legislature to repeal that act. The auditor’s estimates are no part of the appropriation acts of the legislature.</p> <p>5. Public Officers—Services—Contracts.— It has been decided by this court, Loving and als. v. The Auditor, 76 Va. Rep. 942, that the services rendered by public officers, do not partake of the nature of contracts, and have no affinity thereto.</p>