State ex rel. Erwin v. Warren
| Decision Date | 20 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 8972,8972 |
| Citation | 124 Mont. 378,224 P.2d 142 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. ERWIN v. WARREN et al. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Frank E. Blair, Virginia City, Ralph J. Anderson, Albert C. Angstman, Helena, for appellant.
Arnold H. Olsen, Atty. Gen., H. D. Carmichael, Glen E. Cox, Asst. Attys. Gen., Weir, Gough & Matson, Enor K. Matson, Helena, for respondents.
From 1917 until his retirement in 1948 relator was an employee of the livestock commission of the state of Montana. From July 1, 1943, to December 31, 1947, he was employed as a state livestock inspector. During the latter period he was paid a regular monthly salary.
One of his duties as a state livestock inspector was inspection of brands and the collection of the statutory fees therefor. From July 1, 1943, to December 31, 1947, he collected $4,761.60 in fees for inspection. This amount was remitted to the livestock commission, deposited with the state treasurer, and credited to the livestock commission fund.
It is relator's contention that he was entitled to retain the fees so collected as additional compensation for his services and that he remitted the fees to the commission under a mistaken interpretation of the Montana statutes.
The statute setting fees for inspection is section 46-804, R.C.M. 1947:
This section was enacted in 1943 as Chapter 59, Laws of 1943. Prior to its enactment the legislature had provided fees for the inspection of horses (Laws of 1901) and of cattle (Laws of 1937). These sections were repealed by Chapter 59, Laws of 1943. The 1901 law provided that the officer making the inspection should 'receive' three dollars per day while engaged in making such inspection. The 1937 law provided that the officer making the inspection should 'receive' twenty-five cents per head for the inspection of twelve head or less and three dollars per day for the inspection of more than twelve head. Sec. 2, Chapter 133, Laws of 1937; sec. 3, Chapter 136, Laws of 1937.
All these sections declare that the officer making the inspection should 'receive' in addition thereto his actual necessary expenses to be paid by the person for whom the inspection is made. Until the enactment of the 1943 law no fees were prescribed for inspection of livestock at public market, although such inspection was required.
The relator maintains that the legislative intent in writing Chapter 59, Laws of 1943, sec. 46-804, supra, was to establish fees for the statutory duty of inspection at public markets and upon removal from one county to another. But that while the express language of the statute required the fees collected by the salaried inspector for inspections of livestock at a public market to be sent to the livestock commission for deposit in the state treasury, there was no such requirement for fees 'received' for inspections occasioned by the removal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. King Colony Ranch
...Estate, 102 Mont. 178, 56 P.2d 733, 105 A.L.R. 367; State ex rel. Ebel v. Schye, 130 Mont. 537, 305 P.2d 350; State ex rel. Erwin v. Warren, 124 Mont. 378, 224 P.2d 142. Defendant, as an agricultural organization, is not exempt from the license tax here The only remaining question is whethe......
-
Department of Revenue, State of Mont. v. Estate of Dwyer, 88-373
...Ranch (1960), 137 Mont. 145, 350 P.2d 841; State ex rel. Ebel v. Schye (1956), 130 Mont. 537, 305 P.2d 350; State ex rel. Erwin v. Warren (1950), 124 Mont. 378, 224 P.2d 142; In re Wilson's Estate (1936), 102 Mont. 178, 56 P.2d 733, 105 A.L.R. We set out in full the pertinent portions of Se......
-
Montana Register, 2020, Issue 6, March 27, 2020 Pages 514 to 632
...and money spent by the state and counties, cities, towns, and all other local governmental entities."); State ex rel. Erwin v. Warren, 124 Mont. 378, 381, 224 P.2d 142, 143 (1950) ("When fees are imposed the presumption is that they are for the benefit of the state and when a salaried offic......