247:, as it has been since. And whether a power of amotion was incident to "the corporation," could be no part of the question in judgment in that case, or necessary to the determination of it. The power of amotion was there exercised by the select body; and the cause was insufficient; the offence not being any of the three kinds for which a corporator could be disfranchised. And the distinction there taken, as to the mode of trial, is certainly not law. For though the corporation has a power of amotion by charter or prescription, yet, as to the first kind of misbehaviours, which have no immediate relation to the duty of an office, but only make the party infamous and unfit to execute any public franchise: these ought to be established by a previous conviction by a jury, according to the law of the land; (as in cases of general perjury, forgery, or libelling, &c.).
140:
town's bailiffs that the portmen should have attended every meeting. There was a hearing where the portmen gave reasons for not attending. However the bailiffs did not accept them, and the portmen were dismissed. After the nine portmen had been dismissed, an election meeting was held, and a bailiff, Thomas
Richardson was chosen. The dismissed portmen alleged this was unlawful, because their dismissals were improper and so there was no vacancy. They argued the dismissals were improper both because it was "not a removal by the whole body, at a corporate assembly: but by a particular Court", and also because the cause was not enough to justify removal by those bailiffs.
28:
157:
502:
197:'s report of this second resolution, seems to go to the power of trial, and not the power of amotion: and he seems to lay down, "that where the corporation has power by charter or prescription, they may try, as well as remove; but where they have no such power, there must be a previous conviction upon an indictment." So that after an indictment and conviction at common law, this authority admits, "that the power of
139:
that they had been ejected wrongfully and therefore that the contemporary portman was an impostor. It was alleged that they had wilfully failed to attend "four occasional great Courts". These were yearly public meeting events at the "Moot Hall" to conduct the borough's business. It was alleged by the
151:
held that the portmen had been improperly dismissed, and so
Richardson was not appointed as a new portman. The allegation was that the portmen had failed to attend meetings, a breach of a public duty. However, this could not in itself be a good reason for dismissal from office. Only the corporation
267:
There is not an officer or freeman in the kingdom, (who is a member of an assembly,) that might not be removed or disfranchised, if this doctrine was given way to. At times, every alderman, every common council-man, not necessary to the constitution of the assembly, knowingly omits attending.
262:, "that there can be no power of amotion, unless given by charter or prescription;" and we think that from the reason of the thing, from the nature of corporations, and for the sake of order and government, this power is incident, as much as the power of making bye-laws.
271:
It is not necessary, and would be highly improper at present, to say what kind of absence, or under what circumstances, non-attendance may be a cause of forfeiture. It is sufficient that the absence, with all the circumstances alleged by this plea, is not a cause.
237:
Suppose a bye-law made "to give power of amotion for just cause," such bye-law would be good. If so, a corporation, by virtue of an incident power, may raise to themselves authority to remove for just cause, though not expressly given by charter or prescription.
204:
But it is now established, "that though a corporation has express power of amotion, yet, for the first sort of offences, there must be a previous indictment and conviction." And there is no authority since
185:
3d. The third sort of offence for which an officer or corporator may be displaced, is of a mixed nature; as being an offence not only against the duty of his office, but also a matter indictable at
227:, that there should be such a power, as much as the power to make bye-laws. Lord Coke says, "there is a tacit condition annexed to the franchise, which if he breaks, he may be disfranchised."
180:
2d. Such as are only against his oath, and the duty of his office as a corporator; and amount to breaches of the tacit condition annexed to his franchise or office.
252:
216:
234:. Unless the power is incident, franchises or offices might be forfeited for offences; and yet there would be no means to carry the law into execution.
623:
171:
1st. Such as have no immediate relation to his office; but are in themselves of so infamous a nature, as to render the offender unfit to execute any
258:
243:
207:
446:
305:
396:
358:
603:
543:
410:
211:, which says that the power of trial as well as amotion, for the second sort of offences, is not incident to every corporation.
490:
298:
220:, 2 Strange, 819, the Court says, "the modern opinion has been, that a power of amotion is incident to the corporation."
113:
held, further, that only the members of the company itself (not a court) could determine the validity of the reasons.
422:
291:
618:
372:
109:
case, which established that companies had an inherent power to remove officials or directors for a reason.
608:
536:
485:
613:
469:
230:
But where the offence is merely against his duty as a corporator, he can only be tried for it by the
27:
598:
322:
529:
76:
224:
72:
8:
346:
517:
167:
There are three sorts of offences for which an officer or corporator may be discharged.
156:
458:
88:
80:
102:
47:
434:
384:
256:, to controvert the authority of the proposition, collected from what is said in
223:
We all think this modern opinion is right. It is necessary to the good order and
241:
The law of corporations was not so well understood, and settled, at the time of
513:
480:
160:
148:
110:
106:
60:
592:
283:
135:
231:
186:
194:
84:
501:
509:
122:
198:
130:
172:
126:
250:We therefore think the Court was well warranted in
590:
448:Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd
313:
537:
360:Automatic Self-Clean. Filter Ltd v Cuninghame
299:
163:was the leading commercial lawyer of his age.
574:Vide Bull. 205, 206. Doug. 144. 6 Vin. 295.
544:
530:
398:Hickman v Kent Sheep-Breeders’ Association
306:
292:
152:as a whole could determine such a matter.
26:
275:And we are all of opinion that it is not.
155:
411:Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
591:
491:List of cases involving Lord Mansfield
129:city) of the chartered Corporation of
624:Court of King's Bench (England) cases
287:
496:
201:is incident to every corporation."
13:
193:The distinction here taken, by my
14:
635:
500:
604:United Kingdom company case law
423:Harold Holdsworth Ltd v Caddies
577:
568:
559:
373:Quin & Axtens Ltd v Salmon
225:government of corporate bodies
1:
553:
516:. You can help Knowledge by
125:, but town councillors of a
7:
486:United States corporate law
279:
143:
10:
640:
495:
314:Company constitution cases
466:
456:
443:
431:
419:
407:
393:
381:
369:
355:
343:
331:
319:
71:
66:
59:
54:
42:
34:
25:
20:
116:
323:Attorney General v Davy
565:(1758) 1 Burr 517, 526
277:
164:
159:
154:
133:claimed in a writ of
38:Court of King's Bench
619:Lord Mansfield cases
73:Corporate governance
609:1758 in British law
347:Pender v Lushington
121:Nine portmen (like
50:, (1758) 1 Burr 517
459:Companies Act 2006
165:
105:is a foundational
89:administrative law
614:1750s in case law
525:
524:
476:
475:
253:Lord Bruce's case
217:Lord Bruce's case
94:
93:
631:
584:
581:
575:
572:
566:
563:
546:
539:
532:
504:
497:
449:
399:
361:
350:(1877) 6 Ch D 70
338:(1758) 97 ER 426
326:(1741) 2 Atk 212
308:
301:
294:
285:
284:
30:
18:
17:
639:
638:
634:
633:
632:
630:
629:
628:
589:
588:
587:
582:
578:
573:
569:
564:
560:
556:
551:
550:
477:
472:
462:
452:
447:
439:
435:Bushell v Faith
427:
415:
403:
397:
389:
385:Barron v Potter
377:
365:
359:
351:
339:
327:
315:
312:
282:
146:
119:
12:
11:
5:
637:
627:
626:
621:
616:
611:
606:
601:
599:Case law stubs
586:
585:
576:
567:
557:
555:
552:
549:
548:
541:
534:
526:
523:
522:
505:
494:
493:
488:
483:
481:UK company law
474:
473:
470:UK company law
467:
464:
463:
457:
454:
453:
444:
441:
440:
432:
429:
428:
420:
417:
416:
408:
405:
404:
394:
391:
390:
382:
379:
378:
370:
367:
366:
356:
353:
352:
344:
341:
340:
335:R v Richardson
332:
329:
328:
320:
317:
316:
311:
310:
303:
296:
288:
281:
278:
191:
190:
182:
181:
177:
176:
161:Lord Mansfield
149:Lord Mansfield
145:
142:
118:
115:
111:Lord Mansfield
107:UK company law
98:R v Richardson
92:
91:
69:
68:
64:
63:
61:Lord Mansfield
57:
56:
52:
51:
44:
40:
39:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
21:R v Richardson
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
636:
625:
622:
620:
617:
615:
612:
610:
607:
605:
602:
600:
597:
596:
594:
580:
571:
562:
558:
547:
542:
540:
535:
533:
528:
527:
521:
519:
515:
512:article is a
511:
506:
503:
499:
498:
492:
489:
487:
484:
482:
479:
478:
471:
465:
460:
455:
451:
450:
442:
437:
436:
430:
425:
424:
418:
413:
412:
406:
401:
400:
392:
387:
386:
380:
375:
374:
368:
363:
362:
354:
349:
348:
342:
337:
336:
330:
325:
324:
318:
309:
304:
302:
297:
295:
290:
289:
286:
276:
273:
269:
265:
263:
261:
260:
255:
254:
248:
246:
245:
239:
235:
233:
228:
226:
221:
219:
218:
212:
210:
209:
202:
200:
196:
188:
184:
183:
179:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
162:
158:
153:
150:
141:
138:
137:
132:
128:
124:
114:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
65:
62:
58:
55:Case opinions
53:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
583:11 Co. 98 a.
579:
570:
561:
518:expanding it
507:
445:
433:
421:
409:
395:
383:
371:
357:
345:
334:
333:
321:
274:
270:
266:
264:
257:
251:
249:
242:
240:
236:
229:
222:
215:
213:
206:
203:
192:
166:
147:
136:scire facias
134:
120:
97:
96:
95:
15:
259:Bagg's case
244:Bagg's case
232:corporation
208:Bagg's case
593:Categories
554:References
187:common law
175:franchise.
426:1 WLR 352
195:Lord Coke
103:97 ER 426
85:democracy
81:directors
77:dismissal
48:97 ER 426
43:Citations
510:case law
402:1 Ch 881
388:1 Ch 895
280:See also
144:Judgment
123:aldermen
67:Keywords
438:AC 1099
364:2 Ch 34
199:amotion
131:Ipswich
101:(1758)
46:(1758)
414:AC 701
376:AC 442
173:public
508:This
117:Facts
35:Court
514:stub
468:see
461:s 33
127:port
214:In
595::
87:,
83:,
79:,
75:,
545:e
538:t
531:v
520:.
307:e
300:t
293:v
189:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg)
