Amortization

An alienation of hinds or tenements in mortmain. It is used colloquially in reference to paying off a mortgage or other debt by installments, or by a sinking fund. AMOTION (Lat. amovere, to remove; to lake 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 estate 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 assigned 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 me?nber 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 amotion and disfranchisement was not quite clearly noted; 11 Co. 93; and see the observations upon it in Wilcock, Mun. Corp. 270. See 24 Cent. L. J. 99, as to the difference between amotion and disfranchisement. 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not to apply properly to cases where officers are appointed merely during the will of the corporation, and are superseded by the choice of a successor, but, as commonly used, includes such cases.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; Association. The right of amotion of an officer for just cause is a ''common-law incident of all corporations; i 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 Ta. 107, 127; T. Raym. 435; Burrs Ex'r v. Mc Donald, 3 Graft. (Va.) 215 (and see 2 Ld. Raym. 1564, w There 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 Ventr. 77; 2 Show. 70; 11 Mod. 403; Field v. Field, 0 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, 15 111.

110.

Notice and an opportunity 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 hearing, an accusation to be answered, reasonable time for answer, representation 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 power 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