The suspension of an officer by the gov ernor does not deny him the equal protec tion of the laws because the governor refuses to produce to him the evidence against him, or to confront him with his accusers. He is not entitled to a jury trial ; Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U. S. 586, 18 Sup. Ct. 435, 42 L. Ed. 865.
An officer cannot be removed from office during his second term for a violation of duty committed during his first term ; Thurs ton v. Clark, 107 Cal. 285, 40 Pac. 435.
The power to remove a corporate officer for reasonable and just cause is one of the common-law incidents of all corporations ; Dill. Mun. Corp. § 179 ; L. R. 23 Ch. D. 1; but not for pre-existing cause affecting his capacity to hold the office ; id.
The subject is generally regulated by leg islation, though there are cases in which the rule has been applied to officers of mu nicipal corporations in the absence of statu tory provisions ; Richards v. Clarksburg, 30 W. Va. 491, 4 S. E. 774; Savannah v. Gray son, 104 Ga. 105, 30 S. E. 693 ; State v. New Orleans, 107 La. 632, 32 South. 22 ; State v. Noblesville, 157 Ind. 31, 60 N. E. 704.
It was held that, in the absence of statu tory provisions relating to their removal, public officers could not be removed by a vote of the town either with or without a hear ing before the town or a committee thereof ; Attorney General v. Stratton, 194 Mass. 51, 79 N. E. 1073, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 572, 120 Am. St. Rep. 527, 10 Ann. Cas. 883. Where the charter of a borough provided that its president be elected by the electors, and that officer was removed by the governor and afterwards was appointed by the board of aldermen to fill the vacancy caused by his own removal, he was held eligible to fill it ; People v. Ahearn, 60 Misc. 613, 113 N. Y. Supp. 876.
The act of a de facto officer is binding on the public ; McDowell v. U. S., 159 U. S. 596, 16 Sup. Ct. 111, 40 L. Ed. 271. Persons com ing into a public office to transact business, who find a person in charge of it, are not bound to ascertain his authority .so to act. To .them he is an officer de facto, and so far as they are concerned, de jure; Nofire v. U. S., 164 U. S. 657, 17 Sup. Ct. 212, 41 L. Ed. 588; though there was no power to appoint him ; Erwin v. Jersey City, 60 N. J. L. 141, 37 Atl. 732, 64 Am. St. Rep. 584. A municipal corporation who has paid a salary to a de fac to officer who has performed the duties of an office while the right to it was in litigation, cannot be held liable therefor again to one who may thereafter establish his title to the office ; Fuller v. Roberts Co., 9 S. D. 216,
68 N. W. Rep. 308; the remedy is against the facto officer ; id.; Com'rs of Saline Co. v. Anderson, 20 Kan. 298, 27 Am. Rep. 171. See Dolan v. New York, 68 N. Y. 279, 23 Am. Rep. 168 ; but see Mayfield v. Moore, 53 428, 5 Am. Rep. 52. It is no defence to a prosecution for bribery that the act under which the officer was bribed was unconsti tutional ; State v. Gardner, 54 Ohio St. 24, 42 N. E. 999, 31 L. R. A. 660. See DE FACTO.
Where the settlement of a question in volves the exercise of discretion and judg ment, the duty is not ministerial and is be yond the review of the judicial department ; Enterprise Say. Ass'n v. Zumstein, 67 Fed. 1000, 15 C. C. A. 153, 37 U. S. App. 71.
A town collector is responsible as a debtor and not merely as a bailee; Muzzy v. Shat tuck, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 233. It is the policy of public laws to hold all receivers of public money to a very strict accountability; U. S. v. Thomas, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 346, 21 L. Ed. 89. The obligation to keep safely the public mon ey was said to be absolute, without any con dition express or implied ; U. S. v. Prescott, 3 How. (U. S.) 587, 11 L. Ed.' 734; but this was considered in, U. S. v. Thomas, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 347, 21 L. Ed. 89 ; as being too gen erally expressed, the court intimating there that loss of funds under special circumstanc es, as by an earthquake, would probably ex onerate the official. In the same case it was said that it appears from all the cases (ex cept that in Muzzy v. Shattuck, 1 Den. [N. Y.] 233) that the official bond of an officer is regarded as laying the foundation of a more stringent responsibility ; but the court held that the forcible seizure by the rebel authorities in 1861 of public moneys in the hands of a loyal government agent, against his will and without fault on his part, was a discharge from his obligation in reference to such moneys, three judges dissented.
The responsibility of a public officer is de termined, not by the law of bailment, but by the condition of his bond ; Cora. v. Comly, 3 Pa. 372.
Where public money is lost by the failure of a bank ; State v. Copeland, 96 Tenn. 296,