The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1911-10-23
AUDITOR IS WITHIN
RIGHTS SAYS
ALLEN
County Judge, Too, Has Not
Taken Cash Illegally
License Optional
TREASURER N
REGISTER LOSERS
Case Against Former on the
Courthouse Bonds Was
Upheld
TREASURER AMI
REGISTER LOSERS

Judge Frank P. Allen of the district
court of Sargent county handed down
his decisions in the famous Sargent
favor Of the county auditor. the coun-
~ clerk of court. and against the
county register of deeds and the
county treasurer.
The actions have statewide interest
because fee questions nave arisen in
many counties. and these are looked
upon as tests.
In the case against the auditor fees
received for certifying abstracts, GER
tifying deeds and for recording town
ship bonds We're in controversy, the
total amount being about $1,000. At
torney George A. Bangs Of this city
appeared for the auditor.
Against the county judge action
was brought to recover fees collected
for marriage licenses. but the court
holds that such fees belong to the
Judge and that their collection is OPP
tional with that official. Also. GER
tain fees claimed to have been coll
lected by him for certified copies Of
records are held to belong to the
Judge. and not a fee provided by law.
The treasurer loses on fees collect
ed on court house bonds, but wins out
in the case Of fees for making collec-
tons OF School moneys
The register Of deeds loses out on
fees collected for registration Of deeds
and other papers. the ~ making
and the covering OF the same into
the county treasury.
Judge Aliens opinion on the sew
eral points involved follow:
Register of Deeds
Section 2595 Of the revised codes
provides for the keeping by each reg
lister Of deeds Of a book in which shall
ices. and provides further that he
shall deposit with the county treasur-
er the total sum Of such fees.
Sec. 1897 provides a fee for max
ing and continuing abstracts, and
section 1886 provides specifically that
all money received for compiling or
continuing abstracts shall be turned
yer to the county treasurer.
Consequently I find that the county
with the stipulation Of facts entered
into.
County Judge.
Certified Copies.-I have been un-
able to find any statute authorizing
the county judge to make any charge
for the furnishing of certified copies
of his records, and Notwithstanding
the fact that a few decisions may be
found authorizing a county, under
the officer the unauthorized fees col
lected, nevertheless, I am Of the opin-
ion that the county has no interest
in said fees. but that the same may be
recovered by the parties who paid
same to him, as otherwise the officer
might be called upon, after payment
Of said fees to the county. to again
--,, 1900 - <ln@ ~~~e>~ E.>~ ~-I--
the original collection was made.
Marriage License Fee.-section
4oss Of the revised codes provide.
that he, the county judge, shall be
entitled to a fee Of 800 to be paid
by the party applying for the same.
AS I view 1t. the word entitled
means he may. no he must. collect
such fee, but he may waive hat right
II he sees At; In Thompson vs.
word "entitled' is defined as meaning
to give title, right or claim. and In
Reed VS.. Union National Bank OF
Winchester, 20 Graten, 719, it is held
that the use Of the word entitled" ir
the constitution, article II, section I
cannot be construed az preventing
him from waving the right to which
he is entitled.
Sec. 1854 Of our code provides tina,
clerks Of the district court shall
charge and collect the following fees
and section 1891 uses the identica,
words in reference to the register OF
deeds. and both of said sections pro,
vide for the keeping Of a fee boob
and payment to the county treasurer.
On the other hand, section 260t
provides that the sheriff, who person.
ally retains the fee collected by hin
shall he entitled to charge and re.
ceive the following fees" and tn,
same wording is used in reference tt
he coroner register, notaries pub
lie. Jurors and witnesses in section,
26o7. 1908, 1908, 2610. 2614 and 2615
all Of whom. without question, are en-
titled to retain the fees so collected.
Under these circumstances I am o
the opinion that the intention Of tn,
legislature was that the county judg,
should retain marriage license fee
collected by him, and consequently
judgment in this case should be II
favor of the defendant.
County Auditor.
This matter comes up on a demur
rer to the answer. and ~consequetnl,
I do not consider 1t necessary to GOV
er in detail the different fees Gale,
in question by the pleadings.
The above ONCE was created by tn,