Effective 28 Aug 1939

106.220. Forfeiture of office — reasons for. — Any person elected or appointed to any county, city, town or township office in this state, except such officers as may be subject to removal by impeachment, who shall fail personally to devote his time to the performance of the duties of such office, or who shall be guilty of any willful or fraudulent violation or neglect of any official duty, or who shall knowingly or willfully fail or refuse to do or perform any official act or duty which by law it is his duty to do or perform with respect to the execution or enforcement of the criminal laws of the state, shall thereby forfeit his office, and may be removed therefrom in the manner provided in sections 106.230 to 106.290.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 12828)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 11202; 1919 § 9175; 1909 § 10204

(1956) Statutory remedy for removal of officers, adopted under section 4, Article VII of the Constitution, is not exclusive and does not limit the jurisdiction of the supreme court in quo warranto. State inf. Dalton v. Mosley, 365 Mo. 711, 286 S.W.2d 721.

(1956) Sheriff who failed to enforce laws against gambling and against lotteries for charitable or civic purposes and who solicited reward for recovery of stolen property held to have forfeited office and could be ousted by quo warranto. State ex inf. Dalton v. Mosley, 365 Mo. 711, 286 S.W.2d 721.

(1956) Proceeding in quo warranto to declare forfeiture of offices of two judges of county court was civil in nature and burden was upon informant to prove by preponderance of the evidence that by commission of acts alleged respondents had forfeited their respective offices and statutes defining grounds for removal would be given strict construction. State on inf. of Connett v. Madget (Mo.) 297 S.W.2d 417.

(1964) Sheriff who placed or had placed a billfold, which had been taken in a burglary and later recovered, in a suspect's automobile for use in prosecution of the suspect, was guilty of willful and malicious oppression, misconduct and abuse of authority in office and thereby forfeited his office. State v. Elliott (Mo.), 380 S.W.2d 929.

(1971) The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear quo warranto proceedings to remove county officer. State v. Orton (Mo.), 465 S.W.2d 618.

(1979) Sheriff who represented to the county court that the cost for food preparation was greater than the actual cost and retained the difference for personal use was guilty of willful and fraudulent violation of an official duty. State ex inf. Ashcroft v. Riley (Mo.), 590 S.W.2d 903.