Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Allegiance to And The Manner Of >> Amotion


trustees, burr, pa, office, corporation, city, removal, remove and mass

AMOTION (Lat. amavere, to remove ; to take away). • An unlawful taking of personal chattels out of the possession of the owner, or of one who has a special authority in them.

A turning out of the proprietor of an es tate in realty before the termination of his estate. 3 Bla. Com. 198. See OUSTER.

In Corporations. A removal of an official agent of a corporation from the station as signed to him, before the expiration of the term for which he was appointed. 8 Term 356 ; 1 East 562 ; Fuller v. Trustees, 6 Conn. 532; Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) § 238.

The term is distinguished from disfranchisement, which deprives a member of a public corporation of all rights as a corporator; while amotion applies only to officers ; Richards v. Clarksburg, 30 W. Va. 491, 4 S. E. 774; White v. Brownell, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 162, 192. In Bagg's Case, recognized as a leading one, the distinction between amotiou and disfranchisement was not quite clearly notedi 11 Co. 93; and see the observations upon it in Wil cock, Mun. Corp. 270. See 24 Cent. L. J. 99, as to the difference between amotion and disfranchise ment.

Expulsion is the usual phrase in reference to loss of membership of private corporations. The term seems in strictness not to apply properly to cases where officers are appointed merely during the will of the corporation, and are superseded by the choice of a successor, but, as commonly used, includes such cases.

See DISFRANCHISEMENT ; EXPULSION; SOM. PION: The right of amotion of an officer for just cause is a common-law incident of all cor porations ; 1 Burr. 517 ; 2 Kent 297 ; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. (4th ed.) § 251; Richards v. Clarksburg, 30 W. Va. 491, 4 S. E. 774; State v. Judges, 35 La. Ann. 1075 ; and the power is inherent ; Fawcett v. CharleS, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 473; Evans v. Philadelphia Club, 50 Pa. 107, 127; T. Raym. 435 ; Burr's Ex'r v. McDonald, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 215 (and see 2 Ld. Raym. 1564, where the contrary was asserted, though it may be considered settled as above stated); and in case of mere ministerial officers appointed durante bene placito, at the mere pleasure of those appointing him, without notice ; Primm v. City of Carondelet, 23 Mo. 22 ; see 1 Ventr. 77; 2 Show. 70 ; 11 Mod. 403 ; Field v. Field, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 394; O'Dowd v. City of Boston, 149 Mass. 443, 21 N. E. 949. Power to remove is necessarily incidental to the power of appointment and the trustees may remove without assigning any specific cause whenever it is in their judgment in the interest of the corporation ; People v. Higgins, 15 Ill. 110. Notice and an oppor tunity to be heard are requisite where the appointment is during good behavior, or the removal is for a specified cause ; Field v. Com., 32 Pa. 478 ; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 648 ; City of Hoboken v. Gear, 27 N. J. L. 265 ; City of Madison v. Korbly,

32 Ind. 74; Stadler v. City of Detroit, 13 Mich. 346 ; 10 H. L. Cas. 404.

Before amotion the officer is entitled to notice of bearing, an accusation to be an swered, reasonable time for answer, repre sentation by counsel and an adjudication after hearing; Murdock v. Trustees, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 244. Mere acts, which are a cause for amotion, do not create a vacancy till the amotion takes place ; State v. Trustees, 5 Ind. 77 ; Murdock v. Trustees, 12 Pick (Mass.) 244.

Directors themselves have no implied pow er to remove one of their own number from office even for cause ; nor to exclude him from taking part in their proceedings ; Com. v. Detwiller, 131 Pa. 614, 18 Atl. 990, 992, 7 L. R. A. 357. In the absence of • a statute authorizing emotion by the directors of one of their number, the power can only be ex ercised by the stockholders ; Scott v. De troit Young Men's Society's Lessee, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 149 ; Fuller v. Trustees, 6 Conn. 532; and see Com. v. Detwiller, 131 Pa. 614, 18 Atl. 990, 992, 7 L. R. A. 357, 360 ; State v. Trustees, 5 Ind. 77.

The causes for amotion are said by Lord Mansfield (1 Burr. 538) to be:—"first, such as have no immediate relation to the office, but are in themselves of so infamous a nature as to render the offender unfit to execute any public franchise (but indict ment and conviction must precede emotion for such causes, except where he has left the country before conviction ; 1 B. & Ad. 936); second, such as are only against his oath and the duty of his office as a corpo rator, and amount to breaches of the tacit condition annexed to his office; third, such as are offences not only against the duty of his office, but also matter indictable at common law." See Com. v. Society, 2 Binn. (Pa.) 448, 4 Am. Dec. 453 ; Evans v. Phila delphia Club, 50 Pa. 107 ; 11 Mod. 379.

Sufficient grounds of removal: Poverty and inability to pay taxes ; 3 Salk. 229; total desertion of duty; Bull. N. P. 206; 1 Burr. 541; as to neglect of duty, see 1 B. & Ad. 936; 4 Burr. 2004; 2 Stra. 819; 1 Vent. 146 ; habitual drunkenness; 3 Salk. 231; 3 Bulst. 190; official misconduct •in the office ; 4 Burr. 1999 ; habitual but not mere casual non-attendance ; Murdock V. Trustees, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 244; Fuller V. Trustees, 6 Conn. 532.

Insufficient grounds of removal: Bank ruptcy; 2 Burr. 723; Atlas Nat.. Bank v. Gardner, 8 Biss. 537, Fed. Cas. No. 635 ; cas ual intoxication; 3 Salk. 231; 1 Rolle 409 ; old age; 2 Rolle 11; threats, I/rotating lame guage, or Libel upon the mayor or officers; 11 Coke 93 ; 1 C. & P. 257; 10 Ad. & E. 374. The K. B. in England will see that a right of amotion of an officer is lawfully exer cised; but it will not control the discretion of the corporation, if so exercised; L. R. 5 H. L. 636.