Commissioner of Agriculture 87 



charge. This belief is based upon an opinion written by the 

 Attorney-General of the state relative to expenses incurred by the 

 sheriff of Westchester County in enforcing such quarantine 

 notices. The following is a copy of that opinion: 



State of New York, 



ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, 



William Schuyler Jackson, Attorney-General. 



Albany, March 5, 1907. 



Agriculture Law, Section 65. — Quarantine Regulations, Enforcement 

 of, by Sheriff of Westchester (Dimly — Whether payable by County or 

 State. 

 To the Honorable the Commissioner of Agriculture, Albany, A. F.: 



Dear Sir. — Replying to your favor of recent date, inquiring as to 

 whether the charges for the enforcement of quarantine regulations by the 

 Sheriff of Westchester County, under seel ion 65 of the Agricultural Law, 

 were payable by the county or by the State, I advise you that the State 

 would not be liable to the sheriff for any compensation or expenditures 

 incurred in the enforcement of said quarantine regulations. 



"Each public officer upon whom a duty is expressly imposed by law, 

 must execute the same without fee or reward, except where a fee or other 

 compensation therefor is expressly allowed by law." (Section 3280, Code of 

 Civil Procedure.) 



The office of Sheriff of Westchester County is a salaried office, "in con- 

 sideration of which he shall do or perform all duties now, or which may 

 hereafter be imposed upon him by law." (Laws 1895, chapter 88, page 120.) 



The law imposes a duty upon the sheriff in his official capacity providing 

 that the Commissioner of Agriculture "may call upon the sheriff or deputy 

 sheriff to carry out and enforce the provisions of any notice, order or regu- 

 lation which he may make, and all such sheriffs and deputy sheriffs shall 

 obey and observe all orders and instructions which they may receive from 

 him in the premises." (Section ft."). Agricultural Law.) 



If said sheriff should be entitled to be reimbursed for moneys neces- 

 sarily expended in the enforcement of said quarantine regulation, it would 

 be a charge against the county as provided in subdivision 9 of section 230, 

 article 13 of the County Law. 



Yours respectfully, 



WILLIAM S. JACKSON, 



.1 ttorney-General. 



The county attorney of Erie County took issue with the views 

 of the Attorney-General as above set forth and wrote an opinion 

 for the board of supervisors of Erie County, in which he took the 

 view that expenses so incurred were state expenses to be paid out 

 of appropriations made to the Commissioner of Agriculture. 



