766 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. [ART. 25

Personal injuries.

The county commissioners are liable to one Injured by reason of their fail-
ure to perform the duty imposed by this section, the same being Imperative
and not discretionary; neither the fact that a private corporation has con-
tracted to keep the road or bridge in repair, nor that such corporation is
responsible for its being out of repair, relieves the county commissioners
from such liability. Bridge held to be a county bridge. Eyler v. Allegany
County, 49 Md. 269; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Howard County, 111 Md. 184; Adams
v. Somerset County, 106 Md. 201; Baltimore County v. Wilson, 97 Md. 209;
Calvert County v. Gibson, 36 Md. 229; Baltimore County v. Baker, 44 Md. 9;
Anne Arundel County v. Duckett, 20 Md. 475.

What must be shown to hold the county commissioners liable for personal
Injury due to their failure to keep a road or bridge in repair? It is not
necessary to trace knowledge of a defect to the commissioners—knowledge
acquired by the road supervisor is Imputed to them. The commissioners' lia-
bility is statutory, and they cannot excuse themselves by the fact that the
road supervisor is also required to keep the road in repair. Misleading
instructions. Adams v. Somerset County, 106 Md. 202; Harford County v.
House, 106 Md. 442; Baltimore County v. Wilson, 97 Md. 209.

Where a private corporation is responsible for a road's being out of repair,
and the county commissioners have been compelled to pay damages on
account thereof, they have a right of action against the private corporation,
and the fact that the commissioners knew that the road was out of repair
and had failed for several years to remedy the same, is no defense to such
action. When the judgment in the suit against the county commissioners is
conclusive in the suit against the private corporation, and when it is only
admissible as part of the plaintiff's case. B. & O. B. R. Co. v. Howard
County, 111 Md. 184; Eyler v. Allegany County, 49 Md. 269.

A party injured by reason of a defective bridge or road, has his election
whether he will sue the county commissioners, or the bond of the road super-
visor. Eyler v. County Commissioners, 49 Md. 273; Calvert County v. Gibson,
36 Md. 235.

Generally.

Where county commissioners act within their Jurisdiction in opening and
closing roads, mere errors or irregularities in their proceedings are reviewed
only upon appeal to the circuit court, and do not give rise to relief in equity.
County commissioners held to have Jurisdiction under this section and sec-
tions 2 and 12, and that their Jurisdiction, when once attached, is exclusive.
This section construed in connection with the local act of 1900, ch. 685
(applicable to Baltimore county). Jenkins v. Biggs, 100 Md. 436.

The provisions of this article are not repealed by a local law unless the
two are in conflict. It is the duty of the county commissioners to have as
many appointees as are necessary to keep up the bridges and supervise the
roads, and they must see that their appointees do the work. The act of 1874,
ch. 274, relating to Baltimore county, does not expressly or Impliedly repeal
the provisions of this article. County commissioners, held liable for injury
due to their failure to repair a bridge. Baltimore County v. Baker, 44 Md. 9.

The powers and duties of county commissioners under this section, con-
trasted with the road system introduced by the Shoemaker law—see article
91, section 66, et seq., particularly section 80. The two systems are distinct
and independent and cannot be combined. Anne Arundel County v. United
Rys. Co., 109 Md. 385.

What is a "public road"? State v. Price, 21 Md. 454.

The control of the court house vested by this section in the county com-
missioners, can not be given to the court crier. Prince George's County v
Mitchell, 97 Md. 336.

The county commissioners being a corporation, embezzlement by their
clerk, is within the scope of article 27, section 103 of the code of 1904. Den-
ton v. State, 77 Md. 529; State v. Denton, 74 Md. 517.

This section, and sections 2 and 12, referred to in upholding the constitu-
tionality of article 91, section 69, et seq. Bonsai v. Yellott, 100 Md. 500.

For a case involving the act of 1853, ch. 239, section 1, see Anne Arundel
County v. Duckett, 20 Md. 475.