Primm v. City of Carondelet

• Decision Date: 31 March 1856
• Citation: 23 Mo. 22
• Parties: PRIMM, Respondent, v. CITY OF CARONDELET, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 Mo. 22

PRIMM, Respondent,

v.CITY OF CARONDELET, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1856.

1. A person appointed to serve as city counsellor by a municipal corporation, has no such vested right in his office during the term for which he is elected, as that an ordinance abolishing the office would be void, as interfering with the obligation of a contract.

Appeal from St. Louis Law Commissioner's Court.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.

Casselberry, for appellant.

Primm & Romyn, for respondent.RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

Primm was appointed city counsellor for the city of Carondelet, under the provisions of an ordinance approved 14th January, 1853. The counsellor so appointed was to hold his office for one year or until his successor should be duly appointed. The appointment was to commence on the 1st day of January in each and every year. The compensation of the city counsellor was fixed at the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars per annum, payable quarterly, on the 1st days of April, July, October and January in each year. The counsellor was required to give bond to the city in the penalty of five hundred dollars, conditioned for the faithful performance of his duties. This bond was to be given and be approved by the mayor previous to the counsellor's entering on his duties. On the 20th January, 1853, the plaintiff having filed his bond, received a certificate of his appointment, and entered on the discharge of the duties of his office, and performed the duties until the 19th of July, 1853, on which last named day an ordinance was passed by the city repealing the previous ordinance authorizing the appointment of a city counsellor, and all other ordinances in relation thereto; and the office of city counsellor was declared vacated; and no act of such officer would be acknowledged or recognized by the city afterwards. It appeared that the plaintiff was ready and willing at all times, from the 19th July, 1853, up to January 1st, 1854, to do and perform all things required of him by the city as counsellor.

The court found for the plaintiff and rendered judgment for the two last quarters' salary and interest, being one hundred and thirty-four dollars and ninety cents. The City of Carondelet made her motion for review, which being overruled, she appealed to this court.

The question here involves the right of the city of Carondelet to repeal her ordinances authorizing the appointment of city counsellor, to abolish the office, and to discharge herself thereby from any liability to the plaintiff for the salary which he claims for the two last quarters of the year 1853--the year for which he was appointed.

The plaintiff contends that the relation between himself and the city of Carondelet was one purely of contract; that this contract could not be rescinded without the consent of both parties, except for cause; and that there was no cause here shown, for he was ready to perform and had performed his duties as city counsellor.

This transaction between the city of Carondelet and the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a contract. The plaintiff was not bound by any terms to hold his office or situation...