SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

the Republic of Panama. There was some evidence to show that the final terms of the contract, both contracts being oral, were consummated at the Hotel Tivoli, but as this latter contract seems never to have been recognized or acted upon, weight can not be given to that claim. But on the question of jurisdiction there was further evidence to show that the defendant company did actually have property in the Canal Zone, particularly at Balboa, during the time that the plaintiff was employed as its logging manager.
The question of jurisdiction was presented to the trial court upon these disputed facts, and the trial court overruled the defendant's plea of lack of jurisdiction, and found the essential jurisdictional facts in favor of the plaintiff. This finding we are not disposed to disturb. It will be noted that the first part 6f the Executive Order relates to alien nonresidents of the Canal Zone. This evidently refers to nonresidents who are likewise not citizens of the United States. The Executive Order further provides that a civil action shall not "be brought or proceeded with in the courts of the Canal Zone when both parties, plaintiff .and defendant, though citizens of the United States, are found transiently within the limits of the Canal Zone government, unless the cause of action is one arising within the said territorial limits, or the party proceeded against has property within the said limits, subject to the jurisdiction of the Canal Zone courts." This evidently relates to tourists or others in the Canal Zone for purposes other than permanent business in the Canal Zone or Panama. If one is domiciled in the Canal Zone for the purpose of transacting his business in the Republic of Panama, we do not consider that he is "transiently within the limits of the Canal Zone government" within the meaning ot the Executive Order. But moreover, there was proof tending to show that the defendant had property within the Canal Zone, and the record fails to show any reason for disturbing the finding of the court on these jurisdictional questions of fact.
The defendant further claimed that the agreement between thp plaintiff and the defendant, being for more than 500 pesos, the same was unenforceable for the reason that it was not in writing, pursuant to the provisions of article 91, Civil Code of Panama, page 567. This and similar provisions of the Civil Code of Panama have frequently passed under review of this court and the Circuit Courts, and. it has been held that oral agreements of coa rtnership are enforceable in the Canal Zone, although the same

198