Chestnut v. Kansas City
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. W. 0. Thomas, Judge. (1) In the absence of any limitation fixed by statute, au appointing officer may remove his appointees at pleasure. Throop, Public Officers, secs. 354, 361; 2 McQuillin, Muu. Oorp., sec. 558; State ex rel.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. W. 0. Thomas, Judge. (1) In the absence of any limitation fixed by statute, au appointing officer may remove his appointees at pleasure. Throop, Public Officers, secs. 354, 361; 2 McQuillin, Muu. Oorp., sec. 558; State ex rel. Kane ■ v. Johnson, 123 Mo. 43, 50. Plaintiff’s appointing officer having the power to finally remove plaintiff at pleasure, he had the power to temporarily remove him, especially when there were not sufficient funds to keep him in service. (2) Even when the law forbids the removal of officers or employees except for cause and…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action for balance claimed to be due plaintiff as his compensation for service in the capacity of district superintendent of streets in Kansas City, Missouri, He recovered judgment in the trial court and the city appealed.
The charter of Kansas City (Secs. 12 and 13, Art. 10, Charter 1909) provides that the board of public works shall appoint a “commissioner of street cleaning” for Kansas City, who shall have general control, charge and direction of street cleaning. He has authority to appoint, among other positions, such number of “district superintendents,” as well as “foremen,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Kane v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- Robertson v. CoughlinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Willens v. Personnel BoardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1955
- State ex rel. Dayhoff v. BrodieMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914