- `24 , FEDERAL nnronrnrz.
The supreme court of Pennsylvania had occasion to consider the act of
April 26. 1855, in the case of Slate O0. v. Savings Bank, 8 Wkly. Notes
Cas. 430, and therein declared that it was a mortmain act, disabling
foreign corporations from acquiring and holding real estate, but the com- »
monwealth only can take advantage of the disability, and that it was
not intended that a deed to a foreign corporation should be void so as
not to pass the estate of the grantor. Evidently these cases are decisive _
in favor of the plaintiffs right, upon the agreed facts,"to maintain this
action. , _ ‘
The court, then, being of opinion that under the law the plaintiff is
entitled, upon the facts agreed on, -to recover the land described in the
writ of ejectment, it is ordered that judgment be entered on the verdict
in favor of the plaintiff.
V · EASTMAN 'U. CLACKAMAS C0.
(Uireuit Uourt, D. Oregon. September 5, 1887.)
_ 1. .COUNTIES—wDEl7E0TIVE HIOHWAYS—BRIDGES.
By the law of Oregon, a county has charge and supervision of all the pub-
lic roads therein, and, by means of road—districts, supervisors, and local `tax·
ation, is provided with the means to open and keep them in repair, and is
therefore onprinciple liable at common law for any injury to person or prop-
erty resulting from its act or omission in the construction or maintenance of
a bridge on such highway} 1
2. Cossrrrurronan Law-"REMnnr nv DUE Counsn on Law."
Section 10 of article 1 of the constitution of the state declares that "every
man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in person,
property, or reputation. " At and long prior to the formation and adoption
of the constitution the statute of Oregon gave any person an action against
a county for an injury to his rights arising rom some act or omission thereof,
which statute was continued in force by section 7 of article 18 thereof. Held,
that such remedy for such injury, or its equivalent, was secured to the party
by the constitution, and therefore it is not in the power of the legislature to
deprive him of it.
8. Srnruronv CONSTRUCTION—REPEAL.
A statute of Oregon passed in 1854 gave an action against a county for an
injury arising from its act or omission, which was continued in force after
the adoption of the constitution by section F? of article 18 thereof, and on the
adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure, in 1862, the provision was carried
, " into section 347 thereof; but on February 21, 1887, the legislature amended
said section so as to omit such provision, without making any express pro-
vision as to any existing right of action thereunder. cid that, in the ab-
sence of any express provision to that effect, the act of 1887 ought not to be
construed so as to affect or take away any such rights, and did not affect this
V action then pending in this court for damages for such an injury.
4. HIGHWAYS—NOTICE or DE1rEc·r. _
’ A supervisor ·of roads is the agent of the county within his district, and
notice to him of a defect in a highway therein is notice to the county; and
what he may know of such defect in the diligent discharge of the duties of
his oflice he has notice of, and the county also.
(Syllabus by the Oourt.)
*See note at end of case. ‘
\