S C.C.A

420, 15 U. S. App. 339. See Land Grants. A company is not liable for injuries to a must be shown to be unnecessarily dangerous and that the injury resulted from the negligence 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 A. It Co. v. Durnser, 161 111. 190, 43 N. E. 698. It is the duty of a company to heat its cars in cold weather; Ft. Worth & D. C. It. Co. v. Ilyatt, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 435, 34 S. W. 677. When a person (in this case a physician) is, while driving along a public highway, detained for twenty minutes at a grade crossing by the negligent delay of the employes of the railroad company in opening the gates, the company is liable in damages for delay; [18951 2 Ir. R. 255. When no legislative prohibition is shown, a company may lease and maintain a summer 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, 01 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 depot of another railroad company is not a lease; Chicago, It. 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. li. 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. It. 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. Modavvell, 151 Fed. 421, 80 C. C. A. 651, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.j 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. Mc Clish, 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 company to keep a lookout for live stock on or near the track and to use reasonable, ordinary care to prevent injury to animals; Central 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. Kice, 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; Carlton v. R. Co., 104 N. C. 365, 10 S. E. 516; Woodland v. R. Co., 27 Utah 543, 26 Pac. 298; Wasson v. Mc Cook, 70 Mo. App. 393. That the track is fenced is held not to excuse failure to keep a lookout 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 he at largo; 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. R. Co. v. Irish, 72 111. 404; Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. Collier, 118 Ga. 463, 45 S. E. 300. See 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 858, note. One who goes to the premises of a railroad company to meet an incoming or to accompany a departing passenger goes there under an implied invitation; Tobin v. R. Co., 59 Me. 183, 8 Am. Rep. 415; Me Kone v. R. Co., 51 Midi. 601, 17 N. W. 74, 47 Am. Rep. 596; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Cogswell, 23 Old. 181, 99 Pac. 923, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 837; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Spencer, 27 Colo. 313, Gl Pac. 606, 51 L. R. A. 121; Izlar v. R. Co., 57 S. C. 332, 35 S. E. 583; Montgomery A E. R. Co. v. Thompson, 77 Ala. 448, 54 Am. Rep. 72; Sullivan v. R. Co., 39 La. Ami. 800, 2 South. 586, 4 Am. St. Rep. 239; Atlantic & B. R. Co. v. Owens, 123 Ga. 393, 51 S. E. 404. Mere personal discomfort to neighboring property owners because of the location and operation, without negligence, of railroad tracks, depots and side yards, under legislative authority, will not give such owners ground of action against the company, but must be considered a tlamnum absque injuria; St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92 S. W. 30, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 245, 322 Am. St. Rep. 663; Aldrich v. R. Co., 195 111. 456, 63 N. E. 155, 57 L. R. A. 237. That occupants are disquieted and kept in a state of alarm and apprehension (If it does not result in sickness or physical injury) will give no right of action; Gossett comfort caused solely by the growth and increase of travel gives no right of action; Louisville & N. T. Co. v. Lellyett, 114 Tenn. 368, 85 S. W. 881, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 49. It is said the location and operation upon a public highway may occasion incidental inconvenience to an abutting landowner, but until it cuts off or materially interrupts his means of access to his property, or imposes some additional burden upon the soil, his injury is the same in kind as the community in general. Injuries which result from a careful construction and operation of a railroad on the land of another are common to all those whose lands are in close proximity to such road; and for such injuries there can be no recovery in the absence of a statute entitling the owner to maintain such action; Decker v. R. Co., 133 Ind. 493, 33 N. E. 349. An adjoining proprietor can never be entitled to recover from a railroad company organized under the general railroad law of the state for the depreciation of the rental or sale value of the premises, because of the location of the track in the street, except upon the assumption that the location itself is unlawful. If he owns the soil in the street, the location will be unlawful; but if he does not, he must submit to the incidental losses without redress; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Ileisel, 38 Mich. 62, 31 Am. Rep. 306. Legislative authority is no ground for the commission by a corporation of a private nuisance, for the legislature has no authority to grant such an exemption, but the annoyance, to constitute a nuisance, must be so great as to cause destruction to health or of property value; St. Louis, S. F. & T. R. Co. v. Shaw, 99 Tex. 559, 92 S. W. 30, 6