Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-176

Opinion No. 176 Counties-Ta.'\:es-Coll~tion-Pel'SOnal PI'opel-ty- Sheriffs- County Treasur- ers, HELD: The sheriff of one county, acting as a deputy county treasurer, may not go into another county and seize the personal property of a delin~ quent taxpayer and return the same to his own county for sale; nor can the county 'treasurer of one county appoint the sheriff of the comity into which the property was moved to act as his deputy and sell the propert~· there. The taxes on the property must be collected exclusively by suit against the owner of the property. April 22, 1933. It appears from your request for opinion that on the first Monday of ~iarch, 1932, a man resided in Sweet Grass County and owned and possessed personal property therein but never owned any real property. Thereafter, and without paying the taxes which were due, he removed the personal property to another t'ounty in the state and took up his residence therein. You 1m "e propounded three questions deal- ing with the matter and we shall un- dertake to answer them in their regu- lar order. 1. May the sheriff of this county, as a deputy county treasurer appoill't- erl by the county treasurer under the provisions of Section 2239 Revised Codes 1921, as amended by Section 2, Chapter 102, Laws of 192.3, go into such other county and seize the personal property mentioned and return the same to this county for sale? Our an- ,,,vel' is "no". The language of the statute is not broad enough to confer any such authority. Furthermore, See- tion 2239, as amended, must be read with Section 2238 as amended by Chap- ter 143, Laws of 1929, which specifical- ly refers to personal property in the county and does not mention personal property without the county at all. (See Perham v. Putnam, 82 Mont. 349). 2. Has the county treasurer of Rweet Grass County lIuthority to ap- point the sheriff of the (:ounty into which the property was moved, his deputy, and if so, lIlay the property be sold by such sheriff in his county as such deputy treasurer? Our answer to the first part of the query is "no", So far as we can discover there is no law which vests the county treasurer with any slwh authority. The power to ap- OPINIO:"IS OF THE ATTORXEY GENERAL 127 point is confined to the sheriff of his own county. The general rule is that the powers and authority of a public officer are fixed and determined by law. In addition to the powers ex- pressly conferred upon him by law, he has by implication such powers as are necessary for the due and efficient ex- ercise of those expressly granted, or such as may be faitly implied there- from. But no powers "ill be implied other than those which are necessar~' for the effective exercise and discharge of the powers and duties expressly con- ferred and imposed, and where the mode of performance of ministerial du- ties if; prescrihed, no further power is implied. (In re Farrell, 36 Mont. 254; 46 C. J. 1031, 1032). The negati,e an- swer to the first part of the question obviates an answer to the second part thereof. 3. Must the taxes on the property he collected exclusively by suit against the owner of the property? We are Constrained to answer this question in the affirmative. Our laws, seemingly, flo not prescribe any method other than a civil action to enforce payment of the taxes under the circumstances here existing. (S'ee Section 2226 Reyised Codes H)21; Lemhi County v. Boise Liyestock Loan Co., 278 Pac. 214; Kan- sas City v. Field, 226 S. W. 27; Marion County Y. \Voodburn Mercantile Co., 119 Pac. 487, 41 L. R A. (N. S.) 730; 61 C. J. 1051-1054).