Attorney Gen. v. Cahill
| Decision Date | 15 June 1897 |
| Citation | 169 Mass. 18,47 N.E. 433 |
| Parties | ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CAHILL. SAME v. CALLAHAN. SAME v. DONAHUE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case reserved from supreme judicial court, Middlesex county.
Separate informations, in the nature of quo warranto, filed by the attorney general, ex officio, against James H. Cahill, Daniel J. Donahue, and Charles Callahan, respectively, to try the right of respondents to the separate offices of city messenger, city solicitor, and superintendent of streets of the city of Lowell.Reserved on agreed facts and pleadings in the supreme judicial court by Charles Allen, justice.Judgment of ouster.
F.N. Wier and F.W. Qua, for the attorney general.
D.J. Donahue, for Donahue and Cahill.
T.J. Gargan and P.J. Farley, for Callahan.
It is not necessary to consider whether the appointments were valid or not, since we are of opinion that, if they were valid, the respondents were removed from office effectually by the two-thirds yea and nay vote of the city council.
By St.1896, c. 415, § 2, the power of the city council to remove was separated from the power to appoint, which by construction of the same act was held to be given to the mayor.Attorney General v. Varnum, 167 Mass. 47, 46 N.E. 1.There is no indication that the power to remove given to the city council was a part of a scheme of which the mayor's power to appoint was another essential part, in such a sense that, if the latter fell, the former would fall with it.As the power of the city council to remove was neither incident to the power of appointment, nor dependent upon its continuing unchanged, it follows that it was not taken away by the restoration of the power of appointment to the city council by St.1897, c. 95.
The power given by St.1896, c. 415, § 2, is a power to remove without hearing, and without assigning a cause.First the statute gives the mayor a power to remove “for such cause as he shall deem sufficient,” which is a power to remove without hearing.O'Dowd v. City of Boston, 149 Mass. 443, 21 N.E. 949.But his order is not to take effect until approved by the city council.The section then goes on: “The city council may, by a two-thirds vote in each branch, voting by yeas and nays, remove any of said officers without the consent of the mayor.”This gives the city council the same right as the mayor to remove without hearing, and whereas the mayor is required to set forth the reasons for removal in his order, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Bonner v. District Court of First Judicial Dist. in and for Lewis and Clark County
... ... [206 P.2d 167] ... [122 ... Mont. 466] Arnold H. Olsen, Atty. Gen., and Hugh D ... Carmichael, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued orally and Myles J ... Thomas, Sp. Asst ... 183, ... pp. 31, 32 ... ... People ex rel. Attorney General v. Hill, 7 Cal. 97, ... involved the authority of the appointing power to remove an ... Commonwealth v. Harriman, 1883, 134 Mass. 314, 329; ... Attorney General v. Cahill, 169 Mass. 18, 47 N.E ... 433; Bailen v. Board of Assessors of City of ... Chelsea, 241 Mass ... ...
-
Dittemore v. Dickey
...in their order for removal.’ It was held that no notice or hearing was necessary as preliminary to a removal. In Attorney General V. Donahue, 169 Mass. 18, 47 N. E. 433, the power of a city council ‘to remove’ heads of executive departments was interpreted not to require a notice or hearing......
-
William R. Mcfeeters Et Als, Public Service Commission v. J.A. Parker, D/B/A Waterbury Center Water System
... ... C. Shurtleff for the respondent ... Clifton ... G. Parker, Deputy Attorney General, for the relators ... Present: ... MOULTON, C. J., SHERBURNE, BUTTLES, ... ...
-
Mcfeeters v. Parker., 1718.
...manner deemed best, with or without notice.” See, also, Bailen v. Assessors of Chelsea, 241 Mass. 411, 135 N.E. 877; Attorney General v. Donahue, 169 Mass. 18, 47 N.E. 433; Commonwealth v. Harriman, 134 Mass. 314. Taking the two sections of the Public Laws together, it may reasonably be sai......