HOLMES V. OREGON & CALiFORHU BY. CO. 528 ���, {Dietrict Court, Df Oregon. January 29, 1881.) �.. AD^fTNISTRATION— JUTilSUICTION TO GllAKT. , �By the constitution p{ this state thë couiitv court is à (iourt of rec- 'ort, with general Jtiri^Siction bf proljate mattbrk, tb be regulated by law, (article?, H 1 and 12;) 'ànd'by statut'e'(Civ. Code, } 869)it bas the exclusive power to graht l'etters of administration upon the estate of a person wto at or imHiediately befoTe bis 'Ôeath was an inliabitant of the county. ffdd, ( 1) that' à decree of the c'otinty court of Multno- mah county, granting letters to D. upon the estate of P.,by which it appears to have been adjudged by said court, upon a proper petition, that P; was an inhabitant of the county at or immediately before bis death, cannot be questioned coUaterallj^-Oil the ground that P. was aot In fact, sucb inbabitaiit ; .(2) tb^t B»}d court baving, general jurisdiction of the subjeot-rnatter— the granting of administration upon the vacant estàte of a'ileceased jierson^-it haS the authority tp inquire and determine whietlwJr, in'thàt particular case, the deceàstëd �' iV^as an inhabitant Qf the CQuAly pr not, and that itst decision upon the question is conclugive, except upon appeal ; aa(} (3) that a subsequent decree by the county court bf an,bther county, granting letters of àd- �- iniiiistration upon the ^eàmë estate to H.,while the arst werein full force and e£Cect, is null and Told. . ^ V . ■•;' �L Inhabitant..^ ':.,.,, :■' 'n -, !" '■•■ : :y.' . ".'" " -y �Tbe.worçl, " inhab^tant," aa used in thç section 869 aforesaid, haa a iiarrower and more limited signification than domicile, and implies a Personal presenee in thecouiity as a dweller tiiei^ein.' �i. N'EGIilOENCB. '/ '■■'- �■ The defendant's steam-ferrybrbaàed the WàUaniet river to Port- iland,'on a dark night>,with passengers from Its railway, and P^^in steppinç.fromtthe boat tp the pontoon at .the.!landiQg,.stumbled and fell intb the river and was drowned. 2fa^,tbat the want of a giiard Ho prefvent the passeiigets frcttû attem'pting tb'gdàshbre before the ' ■ landing waJs/safely made, ànd some sufflcient: isignel tb waSfn pasacn- ger^ when, it was proper to go ashore, and partiqiilai-ly for the want of sufficient ligbt upon the boat and pontoon to enabje passengers to readily observe the same and tbeir' relative situation, was negligence, ànd càusbd tlle'death of P. ■'* �. CONTRIBUTORT NEGMGBNCSl^DntmKENNEffl. ' >' ' i �'- ' Contributory negligence iia matter of'defence.a'nd the;burden of pr.opf is npon the defendant toestablish it ;, aiuldrunkepuess is not �, per se such negligence, but only more or less evidence of it, according to the circuriistances. ' . �*See anie, 75. ����
