*30 e mznnmn nmronrna.    
» purposes. In these respects nosubstantial diiference is perceived toiexist be-
tween them and chartered municipalcorporations. ,The,argument that a lia-
bility should attach to the latter, and not to the former, because the latter are
supposed to accept their charters voluntarily, while the‘duties`and obligations
annexed tothe former are imposed on them involuntarily, is based on an as-
sumption, in most cases; untrue in- point of fact, and is, even where the prem-
’ises are correct, fantastical and destitute of sense. t Thereis no sound distinc-
tion between the sanctionof anobligation voluntarily assumed by a public _
body and that of an obligation which: the legislature, in the due exercise of its
powers, has imposed upon_it." , _ , A I _ V
¤ ` In Iowa, Maryland, Indiana, and Pennsylvania thc counties or town-
ships charged with the duty of maintaining highways, andprovided with
the means of doing so, are held -liable for injuries resulting from neglect
in this respect. Brown iv`.Jq}`erson Oo., 16 Iowa, 339; Baltimore Co; v.
Boxer, 44   1; House v. Caénmnlssioners, 60 Ind. 580; Dean v. Township,
i 5 Watts dz S. 545; Mahanoy v. Scholly, 84 Pa. St. 136.
And the modern English local boards and trustees, that are charged
with the care and maintenance of highways and provided with the means
of raising funds for the purpose, are now held liable, in their corporate
capacity, for an injury causediby their negligence or that of their serv-
ants. Trustees v. Gibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 93.
l A county in Oregon, through the instrumentality of its county court,
has the charge and supervision of all public roads within its limits, and
· to this end may divide the county i·nto road-districts, and appoint a su-
pervisor of roads for each one, who is authorized, by statute, to assess,
within certain limits, taxes on the property and persons liable to per-
form road labor in his district, and to collect and apply the same in
money or labor on the roads therein. And in case the ordinary tax is
not sutlicient to open a new road, or remove casual obstructions from
any one, or repair a bridge, —he may make any additionalassessments on
the property and persons of the district for such purpose. , A supervisor
‘ must keep an account of all money and labor received by him, and the
expenditure and disposition thereof, and return the same to the county
court annually for examination and settlement. In short, the super-
visor is the direct agent of the county, as represented by the county
· court, in all matters pertaining to the opening and "maintaining the pub-
lic highways therein. Laws Or. c. 50, tit. 1. In addition to this, by
subdivision 4, § 870, Code Civil Proc., the county court is directly au-
thorized "to provide for the erection and repairing, within the county, I
' of public bridges upon any road or highway established by public au-
` thority;" Upo11 this state of the obligation and power of the county,
A it is liable, in my judgment, for an injury sustained by any one in con-
sequence of its failure to keep a highway or bridge thereon in reasonable
repair; and, on principle, the common law will furnish a remedy there-
for as in the case of an incorporated town. By section 4 of the act of
- “ January 7, 1854, (Laws 1854-55, Ap. 168,) concerning Factions by and
,» against public officers and public bodies," an action was authorized
to be brought against any county in the then territory, either upon a
contract, " or for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, arising from some