30 W. Va. 491 | W. Va. | 1887
On the twelfth of August, 1887, Wilbur F. Richards presented to one of the judges of this Court his petition, veri--fied by his affidavit, alleging that on the first of J anuary, 1887, he was duly elected mayor of the town of Clarksburg, and that at the same time J. F. Kearns, J. M. Swartz, Lee
To this return the petitioner has demurred, and we are now called upon to determine whether the “common-council of the town of Clarksburg” has jurisdiction to try the mayor of said town upon charges of official misconduct, and, upon conviction thereof, remove him from his office.
By the first section of chapter 47 of the Code, which went into effect on the first of April, 1869, it is declared that “the towns and villages heretofore established in this State remain subject to the laws now in force applicable thereto respectively; and the provisions hereinafter contained in this
Chief Justice Marshall defines a “corporation” to be an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of the law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly or as incidental io its very existence. These are such as are supposed to be best calculated to effect the object for which it is created. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 639. Municipal corporations are bodies politic and corporate of the general
We perceive, therefore, that while the forty-seventh chapter of the Code expressly declares the mayor, recorder, and councilmen a “body politic and corporate,” it expressly confers upon it the incidents of perpetual succession, a common seal, the power to sue and be sued, to plead and be im-pleaded, the power to purchase and hold property for the benefit of itself and successors, and the power to make all needful orders, by-laws, ordinances, etc., for its good government.
The town of Clarksburg is therefore a municipal corporation, created or recognized by chapter 47 of the Code, composed of all the bona Me residents within its corporate limits, possessing all the powers of such a corporation, not withheld from it by its charter or the law of the land. It is contended by the petitioner that there is not in the.statute creating the corporation of “ the town of Clarksburg,” nor in any amendment thereto, any express or implied grant of
it is proper to remark here that while it is true there is not in said statute any express grant of the power of amotion, neither is there any limitation or restriction upon the general powers of that corporation to prevent it from exercising such power of amotion. We may further remark that it is wholly immaterial whether the charges preferred against the petitioner be true or false, or whether they are, or are not sufficient, if established upon a full, fair, and impartial hearing, to justify his removal from office; and therefore in respect to these questions we express no opinion. The real question is whether a municipal corporation has the right to try its principal officer-upon charges of official misconduct, and upon his conviction before such corporation to remove him from office. Strange as it may appear, yet such is the fact, that, while this question is one of great public concern, intimately connected with, and almost necessarily affecting, the good order and government of every municipal corporation, — we have not been able to find in any of the reported cases to which we have access a single case in any of the States of the Union where this question has been decided.
In Christie v. Malden, 23 W. Va. 667, Charleston v. Heed, 27 W. Va. 681, and in Gas Co. v. Parkersburg, supra, 435 — this Court laid down the rule in relation to the powers of municipal corporations as follows: “A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers, and no others: (1) those granted in express words by its charter, or the general statutes under which it is incorporated; (2) those necessarily or fairly in or incident to the powers thus expressly granted; and (3) those essential to the declared purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable.”
Keeping in mind these rules, we will now consider what powers, *at the common-law, were incident to corporations generally, and what to municipal corporations; and what powers were expressly or incidentally granted to the town-
As all municipal corporations in this State exist by virtue of statutory enactments, and the members of the corporation are generally all the inhabitants of the municipality, some of whom have the right to elect the governing body as well as the more important officers of the corporation, we will, as far as practicable, confine our examination of authorities to the power of such corporations to remove their officers. Here we will call attention to an important distinction between ours and the old English municipal corporations. In the latter, when its mayor or other chief officer was not present at a corporate assembly, it could transact no business of the corporation; for without his presence, as its head, no corporate act done was valid, while in ours the absence of such chief officer is immaterial, providing a quorum of the governing body is present. Willcox Mun. Corp. §§ 94 — 102; Reg. v. Bailiffs, etc., 2 Ld. Raym. 1,233. Will-cox, in his work on Municipal Corporations, says: ‘‘ It is for the legislature or the crown to appoint what officers shall be in the corporation for the administration of its affairs; but the number of mayor, bailiffs, aldermen, etc., being- thus constituted, the corporation has an incidental power of electing any of its members to fill these offices, and also of removing from office any one who . shall be guilty of maladministration, or of such offence against society as renders him improper to hold any public situation.
The earliest case to which we have had access is Bagg‘>s. Case, 6 Coke 99, as quoted by Lord Mansfield in his opinion
Lord Brucés Case, 2 Strange 819, decided in the King’s Bench at Michaelmas term, II Geo. 2, was an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto against him upon a forfeiture of his place as recorder ‘ by not attending; there being no clause in the charter empowering the corporation to so remove. The court said if it is an actual forfeiture, he is out, and you may choose another; if not, it is a misdemeanor, and a quo warranto will not lie.
Besides, the modern opinion .has been that a power of amotion is incident to the corporation, though Bagg's Case seems contrary to it.” Rex. v. Bailiffs, etc., 2 Ld. Raym. 1,233; 2 Strange 819.
This question was again presented for consideration to the King’s Bench in Rex v. Richardson, 1 Burrows 517. This was an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto against Richardson, to show by what authority he held the office of postman at Ipswich. To this he pleaded that he had been lawfully appointed to fill a vacancy in that office caused by the amotion of his predecessor, who had been removed by the only remaining postman for failing to discharge the duties of his office as postman. The question was whether the defendant had good title to his office, and this depended on the questions (1) whether the vacancy was
In Lord Bruce’s Case-, 2 Strange 819, the court said: “ The modern opinion has been that a power of amotion is incident to the corporation, and we all think the modern opinion is right. It is as necessary to the good order and government of corporate bodies that there should be such a power as the power to make by-laws. And where the offence is merely against his duty as a corporator he can only be tried for it by the corporation. Unless this power is incident, franchises or offices might be forfeited for offences, and yet there would be no means to carry the law into execution. Suppose a by-law made to give power of amotion for just cause, such a by-law would be good. If so, a corporation, by virtue of an incident power, may raise to itself authority to remove for just cause, though not expressly given by character or prescription.”
1 Burrows, 517, supra, and King v. Mayor, etc., 1 Doug. 149, were proceedings by mandamus to restore Fane and Luther to their offices as capital burgesses, from which they had been removed by the “ Mayor and Burgesses,” which was the corporate name of Lyme Regis, and the return stated that they had been removed by the corporate body at large, but failed to aver that the power of amotion was vested in them. It was contended on behalf of the King that the return was insufficient, because it failed to aver that the meeting which disfranchised Fane and Luther was held by any right or custom, and did not aver that the corporation at large had authority to disfranchise, nor did it aver that they had a right to disfranchise for the reasons for which they had disfranchised the prosecutors. Lord Mansfield, delivering the opinion of the King’s Bench in this case, said : “ The great objection to this return is that-the defendants have not set out that the body at large has the power of amotion. They have set out the charter, and we must take it to be as stated, and there is no special power thereby given, either to the whole body or to any select part. In such case, the charter making them a corporation, the law implies the right to remove to be in the whole body.” Buttler, J., in the same case, said : “ Before the Gases of Lord Bruce and Richardson it was thought necessary to state the power to be in the corporation at large, because it was not then thought incident to them. It is now settled to be matter of law that prima facie the power of amotion is in the body at large., and for this reason the return was held sufficient.” And in Willcox Mun. Corp., § 629, the rule is stated as follows : “ If the power of amoving any officer is not expressly confined to any particular person or class, it is incident to the corporation at large, and not to the person or class in whom the right of appointing or electing such officer is vested.” See, also, Grant. Corp., § 89, p. 241.
Professor Mipor, speaking of the disfranchisement of
Speaking of the amotion of officers, Mr. Minor, in his Institutes, pt. 2, vol. 1, 527, says the power to amove officers, unless restrained bjr the charter, is, from the necessity of the case, as much incident to a corporation as the power of making by-laws ; citing, as authority for this statement, Lord Bruce's Case, Rex v. Richardson, and King v. Mayor, etc., supra.
If the officer be a ministerial one, holding during pleasure, he may generally be removed without notice or trial, and he is in fact removed upon the appointment of a successor; but if he holds during good behavior, or for a fixed term, he can only be removed after summons, and after having license and opportunity to answer for himself. Warren’s Case, 3 Cro. Jac. 540; Middleton’s Case, Id. 358; Rex v. Thame, 1 Strange 115; Lord Bruce’s Case, 2 Strange 819; Rex v. Richardson, 1 Burrows 518; The King v. Mayor, etc., 1 Doug. 149; Burr v. McDonald, 3 Grat. 215.
Rex v. Mayor of Canterbury, 1 Strange 674; was a mandamus to restore a recorder. The corporation returned that he was only an officer at pleasure, and that upon due summons to choose another, they did choose another, and the relator was thereby removed. The court held that we must presume that people know the effect- and consequence
In Warren’s Case, supra, Warren, being one of the council of Coventry, was removed from office and obtained a writ of restitution. The corporation made return that they had a custom to elect any to be of the common-council, and to remove him at pleasure, and that Warren had been removed, etc. The court held the return good.
Cambridge in England is incorporated by the name of the “Mayor and Bailiffs,” etc., and there is a clause in the charter that the mayor and burgesses may displace the bailiffs. Thompson, who was one of the bailiffs, lawfully elected, was displaced by the mayor and burgesses, and came into the King’s Bench, and showed that he was displaced by the displeasure of Mayor Edmunds, without cause; and although the charter, in that instance, authorized the removal of the bailiff, yet, inasmuch as he was an officer of the king as a bailiff, the court held that he could not be displaced without cause, and he was accordingly restored. 2 Rolle, Abr. 456.
In 2 Kent Comm. 297, the law on amotion and disfranchisement is thus announced: “The power of amotion and disfranchisement of a member is a power necessarily incident to every corporation. It was, however, the doctrine formerly that no freeman of a corporation could be disfranchised by the act of the corporation itself, unless the charter expressly conferred' the power, or it existed by prescription. But Lord Hale [in Bagg's Case, supra,], held that every corporation might remove a member for good cause; and in Lord Bruce's Case the court of King’s Bench declared the modern opinion to be that a power of amotion was incident to a corporation. At last, in the case of Rex v. Richardson, the question was fully and at large discussed in the King’s Bench, and that court decided the power of amotion was incident and necessary lor the good order and government of corporations as much as the power' of making by-laws. But this power of amotion, as the court held in that case, must be exercised for good cause, and it must be for some offence that has immediate relation to the duties of the party as a corporator; for, as to offences, which have no immediate relation to his cor
Judge Dillon, in his admirable work on Municipal Corporations, treating of amotion and disfranchisement, says: “ The elementary works treat of these two subjects together; indeed formerly the important distinction was not observed. Amotion alone relates to officers; disfranchisement to cor-porators, or members of the corporation. Amotion, therefore, is the removal of an officer in a corporation from his office, but it leaves him still a member of the corporation. Disfranchisement destroys or takes away the franchise or right of being any longer a member of the corporation.” The power to amove a corporate officer from his office for reasona^ ble and just cause is one of the common-law incidents of ajl corporations. This doctrine, though declared before, has been considered as settled ever since Lord Mansfield’s judgment in the well-known case of Rex v. Richardson, 1 Burrows, 517, where he declared that “ it is necessary to the good government of corporate bodies that there should be such power as there should be power of making by-laws; and that, from the reason of the thing, from the nature of corporations, and for the sake of order and government, the power is incidental.” But this power, like any other incidental power, is incident to the corporation at large, and not to any select body, or any particular part of it; and unless delegated to a select body, or part of it, must be exercised by the whole corporation, and af a corporate assembly regularly
In this State all the corporate powers of the towns and villages created or existing under the provisions of chapter 47 of the Code, or to which they are applicable, can only t o exercised by the common-councils thereof, or under their authority, except where otherwise provided. By the twenty ninth section of that chapter, they are expressly invested, among other powers, with authority to make and pass all needful orders,_ by-laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, not contrary to the constitution and laws of this State, to cany into effect all the powers conferred upon such towns and villages. As we have already shown that the “common council of the town of Clarksburg” is a municipal corporation, existing under its charter as amended by chapter 47 of the Code, and that the power of “ amotion” for good cause is an incident of every municipal corporation, and that this power is necessary for the good order and government of such corporations, it follows that the corporation of “ The Common Council of the Town of Clarksburg ” possesses this power of amotion, and that the “ common council” thereof, by the express provisions of section 14 of that chapter, exercises all the corporate powers of that corporation, and therefore it may rightfully, for good cause, remove its mayor from office; and this conclusion is in accord with the rule laid down by this Court in Christie v. Malden, and Charleston v. Reed, and Gas Co. v. Light Co., supra. We are therefore of opinion that “The Common Council of the Town of Clarks-burg ” has jurisdiction to try the petitioner, Wilbur F. Richards, upon the charges in his petition mentioned, which have been preferred against him, and upon such trial to hear and determine the same. The rule heretofore awarded to the petitioner against the defendants must be discharged, and his petition dismissed, with costs to the defendants, who have appeared and answered the rule.
Rums Discharged.