Lincoln County record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1900-1905, 1901-07-05
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.

~ ''''tf'th 80 - ~ N''f NlAAAtH "
District Attorney II II. McNamee /
Attorney General Woodburn, in re
gard to the ownership of the rail
road grade and the right of til
County Commissioners to dispose O
the same, the Attorney Genera
hands down the following decision
Office of Attorney General
f II. McNamee,
Dear Sir
Your letter Of May 18th received
and considered, whereby you sub
nit for my consideration the follow
ing questions;
l. Can the County Commissioner
of Lincoln County divest the County
Of its title to the property described
in your communication, in any Other
manner than at public auction sale
after first giving legal notice?
2. Can the said property be sold
as an entirety; or can it be segre-
gated, and the part so segregated
be sold separately?
3. Can the taxes assessed against
said property for the year 1894, up
to and including 1900, be collected
it appearing from the records that
said property has been assessed for
each of these years to the County
Treasurer of said county, who held
the same in trust for the County and
State2
Asto the first question propounded
it appears that during the year 1898
the o. S. L. and U. n r. r. com
pany's right-of-way and improve
ments on their grade in Lincoln
county were assessed at valuation
of one hundred thousand dollars; in
default of payment suit was brought,
judgment obtained, the property
was regularly sold to satisfy the
same, aud at the sale, in default of
any other bidder, it was bid in by
the County Treasurer to hold it in
trust for the county and State. The
time of redemption having expired,
deed was duly executed and de-
livered by the Sheriff of said county
to the Treasurer thereof as required
by law.
Upon this state of facts l am of
the opinion that the County Treas
urer has no right to make, execute
and deliver to any purchaser an abb
solute deed of said property upon a
bare order entered upon the record
of the proceedings of the Board of
County Commissioners without any
public notice of the sale. Board of
County Commissioners are of special
and limited powers and must always
exercise their powers as prescribed
by the Legislature. Hess VS. Com.
Washoe county, 6 New. 104; Beck
VS. Com. Washoe Co, % New. Is;
State VS. G. P. R. r. Co. 8 New. 80.
County Commissioners have no
power beyond those expressly
granted by the Legislature. Waltz
VS. Ormsby Co. New. $40; Lyon Co.
VS. Ross, "a New.
BY virture of the Act creating
Board of County Commissioners in
the several counties of the State
and defining their duties and powers,
the Board can only make an order
to sell the property of the county at
public auction at the Court House
after public notice lin the same
manner as required by law for the
sale of like property on execution, J
and cause to be conveyed any pro-
perty belonging to the county. Sec.
2111, 1918, 1920 Comp. laws.
If County Commissioners attempt
to exercise any power otherwise than
as prescribed by lew, their action is
absolutely void. Sadler VS. Eureka
Co. Is New. AZ; State VS. Washoe Co.
6 New. 104.
The requirements of our Statute,
that the sale should be upon notice
at public auction, are mandatory
upon the county officers. Winn vs.
Shaw 81 Cal. 631; Maxwell VS. Board
of Stanislaus Co. 3 Cal. $3.50; People
VS. Super, San Francisco 36 Cal. sos.
In the case of Lyon county VS..
Ross all the statutory provisions of
law relating to the mode of property
bid in by the County Treasurer are
held by him in trust for the County
and State and the character of notice
to be given Of the sale are elabor-
ately and forcibly discusses.
1t will be observed that no kind
of property held by the Treasurer in
trust for the county and State, and
by him offered for sale, is excepted
from the operation of the rule laid
down in the case above cited requir-
.n1k.ao 1f