GRANTS.
A company is not liable for injuries to a person who goes into its yard, merely be cause such yard is a dangerous place, but it must be shown to be unnecessarily dangerous and that the injury resulted from the negli gence of the company ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Whitbeck, 57 Kan. 729, 48 Pac. 16.
Where a number of passengers who have right to take a certain train is in excess of its capacity, the company must exercise the same care and forethought in providing additional cars as It is bound to exercise in relation to its other passengers ; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Dumser, 161 Ill. 190, 43 N. E. 698.
It is the duty of a company to heat its cars in cold weather ; Ft. Worth & D. C. R. Co. v. Hyatt, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 34 S. W. 677. ' When a person (in this case a physician) is, while driving along a public highway, de tained for twenty minutes at a grade cross ing by the negligent delay of the employs of the railroad company in gates, the company is liable in damages for delay ; [1895] 2 Ir. R. 255.
When no legislative prohibition is shown, a company may lease and maintain a sum mer hotel at its terminus ; Jacksonville, M., P. Ry. & N. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514, 16 Sup. Ct. 379, 40 L. Ed. 515.
Mandamus will lie to compel a railroad company to operate its road ; People v. R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.) 543 ; Union P. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 U. S. 343, 23 L. Ed. 428 (though the business be unprofitable ; State v. R. Co., 7 Neb. 357; but not where it carries traffic on another line owned by it ; People v. R. Co., 103 N. Y. 95, 8 N. E. 369) ; also to build a bridge; People v. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 569. The remedy for abandonment of a railroad may also be by indictment or by proceedings to forfeit the charter ; People v. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 261, 82 Am. Dec. 295.
An agreement whereby a railroad company has the right to run its trains into the de pot of another railroad company is not a lease; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. R. Co., 143 U. S. 596, 12 Sup. Ct. 479, 36 L. Ed. 277. See a contract for trackage in Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. R. Co., 45 Fed. 304.
A state can require a railroad company to establish stations at all villages and boroughs along its lines ; Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co.
v. Minnesota, 193 U. S. 53, 24 Sup. Ct. 396, 48 L. Ed. 614.
It is held that the company owes no duty to a trespasser walking on its track except that of ordinary care to prevent his injury after discovering his peril ; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Modawell, 151 Fed. 421, 80 C. C. A. 651, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 646; the obligation on the part of the company is not pre-existing, but arises at the moment of discovery, and is negative in its nature ; Sheehan v. R. Co., 76 Fed. 201, 22 C. C. A. 121, 46 U. S. App. 498; Singleton v. Felton, 101 Fed. 526, 42 C. C. A. 57 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. McClish, 115 Fed. 268, 53 C. C. A. 60 ; it owes a tres passer no duty to keep a lookout before he is discovered, because he is unlawfully there ; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Bennett, 69 Fed. 525, 16 C. C. A. 300, 32 U. S. App. 621.
It is held that a duty rests upon the com pany to keep a lookout for live stock on or near the track and to use reasonable, ordi nary care to prevent injury to animals ; Cen tral of Georgia R. Co. v. Dumas, 131 Ala. 172, 30 South. 867; Robbins v. R. Co., 62 W. Va. 535, 59 S. E. 512 ; Louisville & N. R. R. Co. v. Dice, 109 Ky. 786, 60 S. W. 705 ; Harris v. R. Co., 24 Okl. 341, 103 Pac. 758, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858; that it is not enough that due care was used after discovering the animals, if by proper care they could have been discovered in time to avert the injury, is held in other cases; Carlan v. R. Co., 104 N. C. 365, 10 S. E. 516 ; Woodland v. R. Co., 27 Utah 543, 26 Pac. 298; Wasson v. McCook, 70 Mo. App. 393. That the track is fenced is held not to excuse failure to keep a look out for animals ; Cincinnati & Z. R. Co. v. Smith, 22 Ohio St. 227, 10 Am. Rep. 729.
It is held that no duty exists to keep a lookout in places where it is unlawful for animals to be at large; Palmer v. R. Co., 37 Minn. 223, 33 N. W. 707, 5 Am. St. Rep. 839 ; Ft. Worth & R. G. R. Co. v. Hudgens, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 201, 94 S. W. 378 ; contra, Rockford, R. I. & St. L. IL Co. v. Irish, 72 Ill. 404 ; Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. Collier, 118 Ga. 463, 45 S. E. 300. See 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858, note.