Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-46

Opinion No. 46 Notaries Public-Bonds--Filing Fees- Secretary of State. HELD: Section 145, R. C. M. 1921. requires the Secretary of State to charge a fee of five dollars for receiv- ing and registering all surety honds for notaries public, inclUlling bond~ filed to replace the bond of a n in~oh'­ ent surety. .January 26, 193;3. You request my opinion on the right or power of the office of Secretary of State to chnrge for receiving amI reg- istering 'a surety bond for a Notary Puhlic where the original hom1 has hecome worthless on account of the in- solvency of ,the surety company on sucll original bond. The matters ,to be considered in de- termining your duty in regard to charging for the second or any addi- tional bond llIay I'eallily be tletermined hy considering the following facts: 42 OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GE':'\EHAL 1. A Notary Public is a public <Jf- ficer. 46 C. J. 501; 2. Section 3!J.!, n. C. )f. 11)21, pro- "ides in part: "Each Notary Public must give an official bond in the sum of one thou- sand doUars, which bond must be ap- proved by the Secretary of Staote • * (I: ."; 3. Paragraph 13 of section 145, n. C. lVI. 1921, governing .the fees to be chal'ged for various duties performed by the Secretary of State is as fol- lows: "For receiving and recording {'ach offioial bond $5.00." Therefore, for each bond filed for any Notary Public the statute imposes upon you the duty to collect $5.00 for its receipt and recordation. 'l'he provisions of the statute appear to have worked something of a hard- ship in this instance 'but the selection of a surety company was entirely in the power of the ]\otary Public and the Secretary of State has no choice except to handle the matter according to the prov'isions of section 145, re- ferred to above. Opinion No, 47 Butchers and l\feat Per1cUel's-l\feat In- spection-Hide Inspection. HELD: Chapter 172, Laws of 1931, requires mea t, as well as hides to be inspected and stamped at the same time. January 31, 1933. You have asked by opinion as to whether chapter 172, IAlwS of 1931, re- quires both the meat and the hide to he presented for inspection at the same time or whether it is necessary to have only the hide inspected. The title of this act provides, among other things, "for the inspeotion and tagging and stamping of hides and meat". Section 3 of the act reads in part as follows: "All butchers and meat peddlers and all other persons shall have the hide in its entirety with tail attached of each beef or veal in- spected in the county * • *. Each of the four quarters so presented shall be stamped ,,;th an Illk stamp * * * " Section 7 of the act proddes as fol- lows: '·It shall be unlawful and a misdemeanor for any person to trans- port by motor truck or other vehicle or have in his possession for the pur- pose of sale any meat w!lich has not been inspected and stamped as re- quired by 'the provisions of this Act, and 'any officer authorized shall ha"e the right to sei7~ and sell the same as hereinbefore pro"ided; provided, how- ever, that this shall not apply to meat being transported or held for the pur- pose of inspection and stamping as pro- vided for in this Act". It is our opinion, therefore, that chaptel' 172 expressly provides that the mea t shall lJe inspected and stamped at the same time that the hide is in- spected and marked aIHI, in view of the language used in the act as herein- abo"e set fOl'th, that this was the in- tention of the legislature.