Morriss v. Virginia Insurance

Citations

• 85 Va. 588
• 8 S.E. 383
• 1888 Va. LEXIS 73

Syllabus

<p>1. Jurisdiction—Hustings court— Chancery court— Case at bar.—Code 1873’ ch. 167, \\ 53, provides that any chancery cause may, by consent, be submitted to the judge of the court wherein pending for determination in vacation. Act of July 11th, 1870 (Acts 1869-70, p. 427), authorizes, in certain events, the judge of the hustings court of the city of Richmond to perform any duty required by law of the judge of the chancery court. Where such cause pending in the chancery court of said city was, by consent (the infant defendants being represented by guardian ad litem), submitted July 8th, 1873, to the judge thereof for decree in vacation, and a decree beneficial to said infants was entered in vacation by the judge of the said hustings court, acting as judge of said chancery court;</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>The judge of the hustings court, sitting as judge of said chancery court, was the judge of the latter court, and the decree valid.</p> <p>2. Judge de facto.—There can be no judge de facto in any case where there is an incumbent in the office.</p> <p>3. Constitution—Act fuly nth,, 1870.—Art. X, $15, Virginia Constitution, providing that no “law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title,” is not violated by the act of July 11th, 1870, entitled “an act to enlarge the jurisdiction of the hustings court,” etc.</p> <p>4. Infants—• Guardian ad litem — Consent decree—Bill of Review.—Although infant defendant may file, after becoming of age, his bill to review and reverse a decree that was entered in a suit to which he was a party, and defended by guardian ad litem, beneficial to his interest as shown by the record, by consent of all the parties thereto, it will not be set aside.</p>