Forfeiture by waste. Waste is a cause of forfeiture. 2 Bla, Corn. 283; Co. 2d Inst. 299 ; 1 Washb. R. P. 118.
Forfeiture of property and rights cannot be adjudged by legislative acts, and confisca tion without a judicial hearing after due no tice would be void as not being due process of law ; Walker v. McLoud, 204 U. S. 302, 27 Sup. Ct. 293, 51 L. Ed. 495. Nor can a party by his misconduct so forfeit a right that it may be taken from him without judi cial proceedings, in which the forfeiture shall be declared in due form ; Cooley, Const. Law 450; Griffin v. Mixon, 38 Miss. 434. Where no express power of removal is con ferred upon the executive, he cannot declare an office forfeited for misbehavior; the for feit must be declared by judicial proceed ings; Page v. Hardin, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 648; State v. Pritchard, 36 N. J. L. 101.
Forfeiture of wages. A provision in a contract for service to the effect that the wages of an employe shall be forfeited for neglect or misconduct which brings damage to a company, should be strictly construed as against the company ; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Blanchard, 35 Ill. App. 481. Where, after being discharged, a railroad employe sues for wages, claiming to have been hired by the month, and this being admitted by the company, which sets up the defence that he was dismissed for cause, it is error to in struct the jury that they may find for the plaintiff if they believe from the evidence that he was hired by the month ; Evans v. Ry. Co., 16 Mo. App. 522, reconciled in White v. R. Co., 20 Mo. App. 564.
Forfeiture of vessel. R. S. 11. S. § 5283, provides for the forfeiture of every vessel which, within the limits of the United States, is fitted out and armed, or attempted to be so, to be employed in the service of any foreign prince, state, or people, to commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of a prince, state, or people with which the United States are at peace. Held, that under this section no forfeiture can be claimed of a vessel which is only employed to transport arms and munitions of war to a vessel fitting out to pursue the forbidden warlike enterprises; The Robert and Minnie, 47 Fed. 84 ; United States V. Trumbull, 48 Fed. 99; The Rata, 49 Fed. 646.
Forfeiture of charter. A corporation may be dissolved by a forfeiture of its charter for the non-user or misuser of its franchises ; Boston Glass Mfg. v. Langdon, 24 Pick. (Mass.) 52, 35 Am. Dec. 292; State v. Jockey
Club, 200 Mo. 34, 92 S. W. 182, 98 S. W. 539, New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, 22 Sup. Ct. 691, 46 L. Ed. 936. It is only for the violation of an express pro vision of the organic law under which a cor poration derives its powers or privileges, or for such a misuse or nonuse of them as re sults in a substantial failure to fulfil the purpose of its organization, that a forfeiture of a franchise will be decreed; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Doud, 105 Fed. 123, 44 C. C. A. 389, 52 L. R. A. 481; State v. Bridge Co., 91 Ia. 517, 60 N. W. 121; State v. Far mers' College, 32 Ohio St 487 ; Harris v. R. Co., 51 Miss. 602 ; Chicago City 'Ry. Co. v. People, 73 Ill. 541; State v. Bank, 5 Ark. 595, 41 Am. Dec. 109 ; State v. Societe, 9 Mo. App. 114 ; State v. Water Co., 92 Wis. 496, 66 N. W. 512, 32 L. R. A. 391.
Accidental negligence or abuse of power will not warrant a forfeiture; there must be some plain abuse of its powers or neglect to exercise its franchises, and the acts of mis use or non-use must be wilful and repeated; Harris v. R. Co., 51 Miss. 602 ; State v. Turn pike Co. (Tenn.) 17 S. W. 128. Thus long continued neglect on the part of a turnpike company to. repair its road is cause of forfei ture ; State v. Turnpike Co., 8 R. I. 182 ; id., 8 R. I. 521, 94 Am. Dec. 123. So of a bridge company, if it neglect for a long time to re build a bridge which has been carried away by a flood ; People v. Turnpike Road, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 254; and deliberate attempts to evade the insurance law, of a state in one of its most important provisions ; Interna tional Fraternal Alliance v. State, 86 Md. 550, 39 Ad. 512, 40 L. R. A. 187; or wilful disregard of an act requiring the corporation to pay in the capital stock within two years after incorporation ; People v. Stone & Ce ment Co., 131 N. Y. 140, 29 N. E. 947, 15 L. R. A. 240; or failure to make an annual re port required by statute ; id.; or charging il legal rates for furnishing water ; State v. Waterworks Co., 107. La. 1, 31 South. 395, affirmed, New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336, 22 Sup. Ct. 691, 46 L. Ed. 936 ; or holding lands contrary to the law; Com. -v. R. Co., 132 Pa. • 591, 19 Atl. 291, 7 L. R. A. 634. Neglect to have corporate property listed for taxation was held not suf ficient ground for forfeiture ; North & South Rolling Stock Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 234, 35 N. E. 608, 24 L. R. A. 462.