128 P. 45 | Or. | 1912
delivered the opinion of the court.
The principal question presented is one of fact. The testimony extends back to the fifties, and the matters in controversy, detailed by various witnesses, are peculiarly for the jury to determine.
The statute, as it stood prior to February 23, 1895, was as follows:
“The limitations prescribed in this title shall apply to actions brought in the name of the state, or any county*424 or other public corporation therein, or for its benefit, in the same manner as to actions by private parties.” Hill’s Ann. Laws, § 13.
By this statute the sovereignity subjected itself to the rules applicable to individuals. Many of the authorities cited by plaintiff are in regard to questions arising subsequent to the change in the statute in 1895.
The original plat in evidence does not clearly indicate that Main Street extended 66 feet in width across Water Street to Silver Creek. It is not shown that Polly L. Price, or any of Mrs. Brown’s predecessors in interest, conveyed lots opposite the part of the street in controversy in a manner to indicate that Main Street extended upon the disputed tract. In fact, the land between Water. Street and the creek at this point, as shown by the plat, is of irregular shape and not platted into lots.
There is no question in this case but that Main Street is 66 feet wide, as shown by the plat filed in 1865. There is, however, a question as to whether or not Main Street extends its full width across Water Street to Silver Creek. It being conceded, except for the easement claimed, that Mrs. Brown is the owner in fee of the real property in question, it is not necessary to determine whether or not she could acquire title to the tract by prescription. The
Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Affirmed.