Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/537

 HOLMES V..OBECK0H A miaBOBNIA BT. 00. �claim onirji^legffite çreeb, ujponiwMdi he anàihis tnotherhad resided separate from BijggSLior soiue ihon&B, and leaving nôt}iing behind himi ■ ^;; i'^ <'\ '• �At Eoseburg they -were-detàined by sickness' and poTerty until October 10, 1878, when they came to St«lem;%li6re for the -want of means topuraue their joumey they remained Tintil November 16th, whaniby aid of others, they started for California on the defendant's railway, and on the evening of the same day, while croBsing'the river at Portland, the defend- ant was drowned.;, �On December 2, 1878,>theooTinty court of Multnomah county, upon the proper petition of the moiher of the de- eeased, styling herself "Mary A. Eigg^ of the city bf Port- land," in whioh it was allagfed\''that the debeased -waë, at or immediately bfifore his death',- ati inhabitantiOf saitf eounty," made an order appointing H. W. Davis admiàistrator pf the estate of gàid -William A. Perkinsi in'iwhichj ariaohg ûther things, dt is aileged thàtj by "the oatb of the p,eeitiorier,?;:it ■fras "proved"; that said Perkins died intestate in, Mdithoieiah county, Orfego^ he ''being att^ttr immediately before!his deaith an inbabitaàlt of; said county,", -whieli ordei: aindiappointment are still in full^fdtceiand effect;> ànd said Davie^ iapiàrsuamae thereof, djjlyjqualifi'edàs sael^ adminiBtratoE,'and oitJanuaiy 2, 1879, broaght \ain: action ia/t>ilaw in thaioirisuitcourtrofithe state foB said county'agaiastthei defendant; under:seotionii367 aforesaidifoafithe identical; cause of suitalleged in the-libel herein, iûiwhich, on;March Slst, said' circuit- court gài^ juidg- ment that the plaintifi take nothing thereby,!which!.3Udgment -was, on August 11, 1879, duly affirmed by the suprekne court of the state and still remains im- full force and effect.> �On Septemher 17, 1879, the county court pf Jackson county, Oregon, appointed the libellant administrator of the estàte of said Perkins, and in pursuance thereof the libellant duly qual- iôed as such administra tor, and brought this suit to recover damages for the death of his intestate. Upon these facts the piea of a prier adjudication is not sustained; for although the action of Dam v. The 0, d C.Ry. Co. was for the same ����