1006 ARTICLE 25

County commissioners may appoint all other officers, etc., required for county pur-
poses in addition to those provided for by Constitution or acts of assembly. Washington
County v. Nesbitt, 6 Md. 470.

County commissioners may contract for a fireproof vault in which to keep court
records. Smith Fire Proof Co. v. Monroe, 97 Md. 371.

A local law providing for the appointment of a treasurer for Carroll County, held
not to operate to impair or diminish powers of county commissioners under this section.
Frownfelter v. State, 66 Md. 84.

Personal Injuries.

County Commissioners not liable for injuries to person due to unsafe condition or
inadequate lighting of stairway in Court House. Harford County, v. Love, 173 Md. 433.

County commissioners are liable to one injured by reason of their failure to perform
the duty imposed by this section, the same being imperative and not discretionary;
neither fact that a private corporation has contracted to keep road or bridge in repair,
nor that such corporation is responsible for its being out of repair, relieves 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; Richardson v. Kent County, 120 Md. 155.

What must be shown to hold 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 commissioners—knowledge acquired by road supervisor is imputed to
them. Commission's liability is statutory, and they cannot excuse themselves by fact
that road supervisor is also required to keep 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; Richardson v. Kent County, 120 Md. 155.

Where a private corporation is responsible for a road's being out of repair, and
county commissioners have been compelled to pay damages on account thereof, they
have a right of action against the private corporation, and fact that 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 suit against county commissioners
is conclusive in suit against private corporation, and when it is only admissible as part
of plaintiff's case. B. & O. R. 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 county commissioners, or bond of road supervisor. Eyler v. County Commis-
sioners, 49 Md. 273; Calvert County v. Gibson, 36 Md. 235.

Under this section and secs. 2 and 12, where county commissioners actually build
and maintain a bridge over a boundary river between Maryland and another state
under an agreement with, and partly at expense of, the county on the opposite side
of river, they are liable for a condition which renders it unsafe although such bridge
is within bounds of a municipal corporation vested with general power over its streets
and highways. Allegany County v. Seaber, 123 Md. 530.

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 cir-
cuit court, and do not give rise to relief in equity. County commissioners held to
have jurisdiction under this section and secs. 2 and 13, and that their jurisdiction,
when once attached, is exclusive. This section construed in connection with local act of
1900, ch; 685 (applicable to Baltimore County). Jenkins v. Riggs, 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 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. Act of 1874, ch. 274, relating to Baltimore County,
does not expressly or impliedly repeal the provisions of this article. County commis-
sioners, 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, contrasted with
the road system introduced by the Shoemaker law—see art. 91, sec. 43, et seq., par-
ticularly sec. 58 of 1924 Code. The two systems are distinct and independent and cannot
be combined. Anne Arundel County v. United Rys. Co., 109 Md. 385.

Since county commissioners constitute a corporation, the alleged pernicious activity
of one of the members in relation to a matter to be acted upon by the board, cannot
be imputed to latter. Jay v. Harford County, 120 Md. 51.

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

The control of the court house vested by this section in county commissioners, 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 art. 27, sec. 140. Denton v. State, 77 Md. 529; State v. Denton, 74 Md. 517,