Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-04-27
Dean, ct al, V. Washington Naviga-
tiOn, ct al, WascO County.

]
dOn, ct al, WascO County.
o. c. Dean, Andrew Pearson, AL
fred Shepler and Theodore Shepler,
partners doing business under the
firm name of Dean & Pearson, re-
spondents, V. Washington Navigation
Company, corporation, W. S. Chap
man, c. d. Moore and William
Priest, appellants. Appeal from the
circuit court for Wasco county.
Hon. W. L. Bradshaw, Judge. Ar
gued and submitted April II, 1911.
Carter & Dufur and H. H. Riddell,
for appellants. A. A. Jayne and w.
H. Wilson, for respondents. Burnett,
j. Suit dismissed.
Burnett j.: The plaintiffs here,
alleging that they are the owners
and operators of regularly licensed
ferry across the Columbia River be-
tween Hood River, Oregon, and White
Salmon, Washington, bring this suit
to enjoin the defendants from main
tanning a rival ferry between the
same points. The averment of the
existence of duly licensed ferry un-
der the ownership of plaintiffs was
denied and as an essential element
of their complaint it became neces-
sary for them to prove it. This in
wolves the regularity of the proceed
ings Of the county court of Wasco
county under which the plaintiffs
claim. The county court has author
ity and power, in this respect, "to
license ferries and fix the rate of
ferriage." L. o. L.. Sec. 937. 1t has
often been held, beginning as early
as Johns v, Marion County, Or, 46,
and in many later cases, that when
transacting such business the county
court is a tribunal of limited juris-
diction. In respect to ferry licenses
1t is required by Sec. 6491, L. 0. L.,
that "unless otherwise provided by
law, no such license shall be granted
to any person other than the owner
of the land embracing or adjoining
such lake or stream where the ferry
| is proposed to be kept, unless the
landing place of such proposed ferry
shall be at the end of a street in
an incorporated city or town, or un-
less the owner shall neglect to ap-
ply for such license; and whenever
application shall be made for a IL
cense by any person other than such
owner, the county court shall not
grant the same unless proof be made
that the applicant caused notice in
writing of his intention to make such
application to be given to such own
err If residing in the county at
least 10 days before the term of
court at which application is made,
unless the landing place of such
proposed ferry shall be at the end of
street in an incorporated city or
town as aforesaid" Section 6492
provides that every person intend
ing to apply for a license to keep a
ferry at any place shall give notice
of such intention by posting up at
least three notices in public places
in the neighborhood where the ferry
is proposed to be kept 20 days prior
to any Tgular term of the county
court at which the application shall
be made; provided that when appli-
! cation shall be made for the renewal
of license where the former license
has expired, the same may be grant
ed or renewed without previous no.
tlce or petition" 1t is contended in
the evidence and argument of coun-
sci that the license of the plaintiffs
alluded to but not so described in
their complaint was renewal of a
former license and hence no notice
of the application for the same was
necessary, but unless there was a
formal valid license there could be
no renewal within the meaning of
Sec. 6492. It was incumbent upon