State v. City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 15 November 1886
• Citation: 90 Mo. 19,1 S.W. 757
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DENISON v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS and others.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

1 S.W. 757

90 Mo. 19

STATE ex rel. DENISON v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS and others.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

November 15, 1886.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS — ST. LOUIS POLICE JUSTICES — REMOVAL — VALIDITY OF RESOLUTION.

Police justices of the city of St. Louis, being appointed for a specified term, and removable only for cause, and not at the discretion of the mayor or council of the municipal assembly, a resolution removing a person from the office is void, if the person so removed does not receive a specification of the charges, notice, and an opportunity to be heard.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court.

Certiorari.

Dyer, Lee & Ellis, for the State. L. Bell, for appellants, City of St. Louis and others.

BLACK, J.

A writ of certiorari was sued out of the circuit court in this case to test the validity of a resolution of the council of the municipal assembly of St. Louis removing the relator from the office of police justice. The return to the writ, upon which judgment was given for relator, shows that the council, on the nineteenth May, 1885, adopted a resolution, which recites, in general terms, a current report of political abuses in various city institutions, and then a committee of three is raised "to inquire into the management of the affairs of the several departments," with power to summon witnesses, and to report to the council "such facts as may come within their knowledge, with such recommendation as in their judgment may be just and proper." On July 24, 1885, the committee reported that they had "considered the charges" against the relator, and from the evidence were satisfied that he had neglected his duties, in absenting himself from court the greater part of the day, and that he had violated the charter in engaging in the practice of law, and recommended that he be removed from office. The report was considered by the council on thirty-first July, and the resolution removing the relator was then adopted. The return also shows that the relator was summoned as a witness before the committee, and gave evidence of his official conduct; that, after the report had been filed, he addressed a communication to the council, in which he says he had had no notice of any charges against him, and he asked to be informed as to what they were, and that he might be heard before a session of the council. Beyond its reading no notice was taken of this communication.

Where an officer is appointed during pleasure, or where the power of removal is discretionary, the power to remove may be exercised without notice or hearing. Field v. Com., 32 Pa. St. 478; Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230. But where the appointment is during good behavior, or where the removal must be for cause, the power of removal can only be exercised when charges are made against the accused, and after notice, with a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the officer or body having the power to remove. Gaskins' Case, 8 Term R. 209; Field v. Com., supra; State v. Bryce, 7 Ohio St. pt. 2, 82; Dill. Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.) §§ 250-254.

The police justices of the city of St. Louis are appointed by the mayor, and confirmed by the council, for the term of four years. Sections 2, 9, art. 4, Charter, (2 Rev. St. 1590, 1591.) Section 5 provides: "Any elected city officer may be suspended by the mayor, and removed by the council, for cause; and any appointed officer may be removed by the mayor or council for cause." Section 7 provides: "Whenever the mayor shall remove any appointed officer from office, he shall immediately notify the council of such removal, and the cause therefor, and the council shall fill the vacancy." Section 8: "All officers appointed by the mayor shall be subject to removal by a majority of the elected...