Majors v. Lewis and Clark County
| Decision Date | 03 October 1921 |
| Docket Number | 4433. |
| Citation | 201 P. 268,60 Mont. 608 |
| Parties | MAJORS v. LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY ET AL. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Lewis and Clark County.
Action by Edward J. Majors against the County of Lewis and Clark and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.
McIntire & Murphy, of Helena, for appellant.
L. A Foot, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This action was brought to recover money alleged to have been received by the defendant to the plaintiff's use.
The complaint sets forth that from January, 1917, to January 1919, plaintiff was sheriff of Lewis and Clark county; that during his term there were confined in the Lewis and Clark county jail a large number of persons committed thereto by judgments or orders of the federal authorities for this district; the total number of days during which such persons were so confined amounted to 7,886; that by agreement the United States paid for the subsistence of such persons 75 cents per day, amounting to $5,914.50; that this amount was received by the defendant county and was the reasonable compensation for the services rendered and the actual amount expended by plaintiff therefor; that the county has paid to plaintiff only $3,942, or at the rate of 50 cents per day per person so confined, and has retained the balance the equivalent of 25 cents per day, and has refused to pay the same or any part thereof to plaintiff. The prayer is for $1,971.50. A general demurrer was sustained to this complaint, judgment entered dismissing the action, and plaintiff appealed.
The trial court proceeded upon the theory--indicated in a memorandum opinion--that, since the statutes of this state then in force limited the compensation of the sheriff for board of prisoners to 50 cents per day per prisoner, plaintiff could not recover more than that amount.
The one question presented for determination is: To whom does the money paid by the United States for the subsistence of federal prisoners belong? It is beyond controversy that the United States cannot compel any state or territory to care for federal prisoners, and that the consent of the state or territory, as the case may be, to do so for the accommodation of the federal government, is necessary. By joint resolution of the first Congress, September 23, 1789 (1 Stat. 96), the several states were requested to consent to the use of their common jails for the detention of federal prisoners and to require their proper officers to receive, support, and safely keep such prisoners until discharged in due course of law, the United States to pay for the support of such prisoners and also pay 50 cents per month for each prisoner so confined therein for the use and upkeep of every such jail so used.
So far as our information goes, every state has acceded to the request expressed in the joint resolution above to the extent that federal prisoners may be confined and cared for in local jails. By an act approved January 12, 1872 (Comp. Stat. div. 5, § 1275), the territory of Montana expressed its consent, but undertook to define the terms upon which the privilege might be exercised, viz. that the United States should pay for the support of such prisoners and the legal fees of the jailers, and also $10 per month to the county whose jail was so used, for the use and upkeep of the jail.
Whatever may be said of the legislative policy expressed in these early statutes, the attempt by either the federal government or the territorial Legislature to prescribe specific compensation for the use of local jails was abandoned. Section 5547, U.S. Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. § 10548), provides:
"The Attorney General shall contract with the managers or proper authorities having control of such prisoners, for the imprisonment, subsistence and proper employment of them."
Section 3026, Political Code 1895, provided:
"The sheriff must receive, and keep in the county jail, any prisoner committed thereto by process or order issued under the authority of the United States, until he is discharged according to law, as if he had been committed under process issued under the authority of this state; provision being made by the United States for the support of such prisoner."
The provisions of section 3026 have been in effect continuously since their enactment and are now found in section 9763, Revised Codes.
This state might have refused to permit its jails to be used for the incarceration of federal prisoners unless compensation was made therefor, but it saw fit, as it had the right to do to relinquish the claim asserted in the territorial statute above, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial