[Download] "Franzke v. Fergus County Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Franzke v. Fergus County Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 10, 1926
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Injunction ? Counties ? Sale of County Property ? Legislative Direction Controlling ? Statutory Construction ? Doctrine of Expediency ? Statutes ? General and Special. "Sale" ? "Agreement to Sell" ? Definition. 1. A sale, as distinguished from an agreement to sell, is the actual transfer of title from the grantor to the grantee, an agreement to sell being a contract to be performed in the future, which, if fulfilled, results in a sale. - Page 151 Counties ? Sale of County Property ? Legislature may Prescribe Mode. 2. A county is merely a subdivision of the state for governmental purposes, and as such is subject to legislative regulation and control; the legislature may within the limitations prescribed by the Constitution, circumscribe or extend the powers to be exercised by a county, and legislative authority to regulate or control the disposition of county property not having been limited by the Constitution, it could properly declare, as it did by sections 4444 and 4465, Revised Codes of 1921, that such property may be sold only under the restrictions and in the manner therein indicated. Same ? County may not Sell County Property on Installment Plan. 3. Held, on application for writ of injunction, that a county is without power to enter into an agreement to sell land owned by it, on the installment plan, its power in that regard being limited to an actual sale at public auction and for cash by section 4465 above. Same ? Exercise of Powers ? When Legislative Direction Exclusive. 4. Where the legislature has prescribed with particularity the essential steps necessary to be taken by a county in the exercise of a power granted, the statute must be held to exclude any other mode of procedure, under the doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Same ? Exercise of Powers ? Statutes ? Construction ? Doctrine of Expediency Does not Enter into. 5. The fact that an unauthorized mode of procedure contemplated by county authorities in the disposition of county property may be in the best interest of the county is not an admissible argument in favor of upholding the transaction, the doctrine of expediency not entering into the construction of statutes. Same ? Sale of County Property ? Statute Controlling. 6. Held, that the contention that subdivision 10, of section 4465, above, providing the method to be pursued in selling county property, applies only to a sale of property obtained for purely public purposes but no longer needed for such purposes, and that therefore a ranch held by it in its proprietary capacity and not acquired for a public purpose does not fall within its purview, cannot be sustained. Statutes ? General and Special ? When Special Act Controls. 7. Where one Act deals with a subject generally and another with a part of the same subject, the two must be read together and harmonized, if possible, but to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between them, the special statute prevails over the general one. - Page 152