Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-512

Opinion No. 512 Leases-County Commissioners-Coun- ty Tax Deed LamIs, Leases of. HELD: County lands leased under authority of Chapter 65, Laws of 1933, do not carry an implied restriction that such leases are made subject to sale, but the board of county commis- sioners, if they desire, may expressl~­ make the leases suhject to sale. April 12, 1934. You ask whether leases entered into by virtue of Chapter 65 of the Laws of 1933 carry an implied restriction that such leases are made subject to sale. Section 28, Chapter 100 of the Laws of 1931, is contained within a general act designating the powers of county commissioners and t,he particular sec- tion refers to the powers of county commissioners relative to leasing lands. It contains the following provision: "All such property must be leased sub- ject to sale by the board and no lease shall be for a period to exceed three ~-ears." Chapter 65, Laws of 1933 is a special act, the title of which reads as follows: "An Act providing for the Sale, Leas- ing, Exchanging, and for Quieting Title to Lands Acquired by any County by Tax Deed." It is limited to lands ac- quired b.,- tax deed. By its terms it authorizes a lease for a period not OPINIONS OF THE A'l'TORXEY GENERAL 351 "longer than five years. except of lands to be or within a legally created graz- ing district, when such lease ma~' run for a period of not to exceed ten years.' It is apparent that Chapter 65 is in- tended to include a new method of lea'sing tax title lands owned by coun- ties. It extends the term of leasing an(l to that extent amends the prior stat- ute. I believe that such law also re- lieves the commissioners from the lim- itation imposed b~' the prior statute to the effect that all propert~· must be leased subject to sale. As noted in your letter, the earlier sta tute is a general statute, the later statute a special stat- ute. The earlier sta'tnte contains a limitation on certain leases, the later statute authorizes different leases with no mention of a limitation. Dnder the decisions of the Supreme Court. of this state it would appear that the implied repeal removes the limitation noted. Reagan v. Boyd, 5n Mont. 4503; Barth v. EI~', 85 ~Iont. 0310: London G. & A. Co. Ltd., v. Industrial Accident Board, 82 Mont. 304; City of Butte v. Industrial Accident Board, 52 Mont. 75.) It would seem, however, that there is nothing in the statute to pre\'ent commissio'ners from leasing tax lands subject to sale, if they so desire.