Barbour v. Grimsley
Supreme Court of Virginia
Barbour v. Grimsley, 107 Va. 814 (Va. 1907)
61 S.E. 1135; 1907 Va. LEXIS 84
Barbour v. Grimsley
Opinion of the Court
This day came again the parties by counsel, and the court having maturely considered the transcript of the record of the petition aforesaid and arguments of counsel, is of opinion, for reasons set forth in paragraphs four, five, six and seven of the answer of the Honorable Daniel A. Grimsley, judge of the circuit court of Culpeper county, and upon the authority of Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. E. 119; Smith v. Bryan, Mayor, 100 Va., 199, 40 S. E. 652, and Henrico County v. City of Richmond, 106 Va., 282, 55 S. E. 683, that the prayer of the petitioner for a writ of prohibition be denied; and that the respondent recover of the petitioner his costs in this behalf expended.
Writ denied.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Barbour v. Grimsley, Judge
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Constitutional Law—Acts of Doubtful Validity.—The federal constitution is a grant of power by the states to the federal government. The state, constitution is simply a restraining instrument, and the legislature of the state has all legislative powers not forbidden by the state or federal constitution; and, while this court has power to declare an act of the legislature unconstitutional, it will never do so unless the act is plainly unconstitutional. All doubts are resolved in favor of the constitutionality of such acts. 2. Constitutional Law—Construction—Bead as a Whole—Commissioners of Revenue—Appointment.—The constitution of the state is to be construed as a whole, and effect given to every sentence of it, if possible. So construing the present constitution, and reading the clauses dividing the powers of the government into legislative, executive, and judicial, and forbidding any person to exercise the powers of more than one at the same time, in connection with section 110 providing that commissioners of the revenue shall be elected or appointed, as the General Assembly may provide, the latter provision may be regarded as an exception to the general-rule, and an act of assembly authorizing circuit courts, or the judges thereof in vacation, to appoint commissioners of the revenue is not unconstitutional on the ground of being an unwarranted commingling of powers. 3. Constitutional Law.—Act of Doubtful Validity—Practical Construction.—If a statute conferring upon courts or judges the power to appoint certain officers is of doubtful validity, it will not be declared. unconstitutional where it appears that, under the same or similar constitutional provisions, like powers have been conferred by similar statutes which have never been called in question by the courts, nor by two constitutional conventions which have since assembled, but have received the sanction of the legislature, and the inferior courts of the state, and have been acquiesced in for over half a century by all the departments of the state government. The practical construction thus put upon such acts will be regarded as decisive of their validity. 4. Constitutional Law—Commingling Powers.—The provision of the constitution dividing the powers of government into legislative, executive, and judicial, and forbidding any person to exercise the power of more than one of them at the same time, does not forbid the legislature to confer upon a court or judge the power to exercise legislative or executive duties to a limited extent. Governments could not exist if the inhibition on the intermingling of such powers in one person or body were strictly, literally, and unyieldingly applied in every situation. 5. Constitutional Law—Commissioners of Revenue—Appointment.— Upon the principles stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the act of assembly conferring upon circuit courts and the judges thereof in vacation the power to appoint commissioners of the revenue for the several counties of the state is not unconstitutional.