Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-167

Opinion No. 167 Taxation-l\lotor Vehicles-D. S. Mail Cal·liel's-l\fail-SheIiffs-Levy -Conflict of Laws. HELD: If the sheriff fully complies with his duty under the laws of the United States in relation to the collec- tion of a tax on a motor vehicle, which procedure may require a levy and de- tention of a car (not at the time load- ed ",ith mail or carrying mail), the sheriff will be fully protected by his rights unller the laws of this state and will not be interfering with any fed- eral law. April 15, 1933. You haye requested my opinion on the right of the sheriff of ~·onr county to levy upon the car of a mail carricr who refuses to take out an automobile license. I judge that your inquiry is not as to the procedure in relation to the levy, rather that same is as to the right.s and disabilities by virtue of the fed- eral statute. "Whoever shall knowingly and wil- fully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, or any carriage, horse, driv- er or carder, or car, steamboat, or other cOllI'eya lIce or vessel carrying the same, shnll be fined not more than $100.00, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both." 18 U. S. C. A. Section 324. (Criminal Code, Section 201). A statute ,·ery similar to this has been the law of the United States for 120 OPINIOXS OF THE ATTORXEY GENERAL manv veal's. Two old state decisions han~ held it was lawful to levy upon or attach a steamiloat used in the con- vevance of mail but not loaded at the til~le of levv. Parker v. Porter, 6 La. 1G9; Lathr~p v. Middleton, 23 Cal. 257. The distinction appears to be that it is a violation of the law to levy UPOll or hold a conveyance loa del] with mail or in the act of transporting same but it is not a "iolation of the law to levy upon same when not engaged in the conveyance or loaded therewith. It has been held that to hold a horse or conveyance in the midst of a trip, when the conveyance is loaded with mail is a violation of this statute. If the levy is made or lien claimed when the horse or conveyance is not so used, the sta- tute is not a defense as against the claim of lien nor will a criminal prose- cution lie. U. S. v. McCracken, Fed. Cas. 15664. It has been held that the keeper of a tollgate may require payment of the toll by a mail carrier before permit- ting his passage. Harper v. Endert, 103 Fed. 911. In two recent cases in the District of Columbia it has been held that employees of the government must comply ",ith the ordinances of the district in relation to turning off a motor when the car is not occupied and carrying such tags as are required un- der the ordinances. White v. D. C. 4 }1'ed. (2) 163; Croson v. D. C., 2 Fed. (2) 924. From the foregoing cases it is plain that if the sheriff f 1llly complies with his duty under the laws of the United States in relation to the collection of a tax on a motor yehicle, which pro- cedure may require a levy and deten- tion of a car (not at the time 10ac1ed with mail or carrying mail), the sher- iff will be fully protected by his rights nnder the laws of this state and will not be interfering with the fec1eral sta- tute quoted, or any other federal law which we can discover.