Pabst vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. lower than the platform. The train stopped at the station, the last two carriages being still in the tunnel, and the carriage in which B rode being opposite the heap. A passenger who rode in the next carriage, as the train stopped, heard "Highbury" called out at the far end of the platform. He got out, and then heard a groan in the tunnel, and on going back he found B lying on the heap with his legs between the wheels of the carriage, but they had not passed over him. The passengers also heard "Keep your seats" called out, and the train then moved forward toward the platform. One of B's legs was broken, and he had received internal injuries, of which he died; it was after dark. There was a lamp within the tunnel near the entrance, about 28 feet from where B was found; the tunnel was full of steam. The judge non-suited the plaintiff, giving her leave to move to enter a verdict, "if the court considered there was any evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants which could properly be left to the jury." The Court of Q. B. refused a rule. On appeal to the Exchequer Chamber, it was held by four of the judges that there was not evidence on which a jury could properly have found for the plaintiff, and the non-suit was therefore right. The same judges held that the question of whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased was still open on the above reservation. Three of the judges contra on both points. By the whole court, that the calling out the name of the station is not in itself an invitation to the passengers to alight; whether it is so or not must depend on the circumstances of each particular case. In the case just cited, the train had arrived at its destination, but the carriage in which was the passenger had not come up to the platform and stopped. It was a dark night, and the passenger in question was near-sighted. Proclamation was made by some one at the far end of the carriage, "Highbury." It did not appear by whom this proclamation was made, but it was not contradicted, and was probably uttered by some agent of the company. Thereupon the passenger in question left his seat and proceeded to alight. He fell upon a heap of rubbish, with his legs in front of one of Pabst vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. the wheels. Another proclamation was then made to the passengers in the train, "Keep your seats," and the train moved forward, crushing the man's legs and inflicting other injuries, of which he subsequently died. Four of the seven judges of the Court of Exchequer Chamber held that the decision of the court below directing the plaintiff to be nonsuited, without so much as leaving the question of negligence to the jury, was correct; and all seven of them held that the calling out the name of the station was not in itself an invitation to the passengers to alight. In this case all the authorities previously decided in England, bearing upon the question, were cited; the cause was fully argued, and the judges all gave their opinions seriatim. We all know, from our own experience, that it is customary for conductors to announce the name of a station to the passengers before the platform has been actually reached, so that they may have time to gather up their impedimenta, put on their over-garments, aud in other respects prepare to alight. We know, also, how often it happens that in approaching the station, particularly in a city, the trains stop for a brief period before reaching the landing or depot. The shifting of trains from one track to another, or other causes produced by the necessities of trade in a large city, where it is important that the public highways should be obstructed as little as possible by the business of railways, render such stoppages inevitable. Men who travel are presumed to be reasonable beings, and to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their own persons, and yet wherever men are found, whether at home or abroad, accidents do happen to some, which are the direct results of their own imprudence. In such cases it would not be just to require others to make them compensation in damages. If men are to be transported as freight upon railways and rivers, and their carriers held to the responsibility of insurers, they should suffer themselves to be handled as freight, and wait in their seats till they can be landed upon the platform by the agents of the transporters. Where intelligence exists, however, there must be accountability to itself at least, for the consequences of its own imprudence. While we hold that railway companies should be held to the full measure of their responsibilities, Pabst vs. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. yet it must be admitted that their business is of incalculable advantage to the public. They should be made to suffer, in damages, for their own negligence or mismanagement, where it is proved, but it is the duty of courts to hold the scales of justice even in the trial of their causes, where juries are, so liable to be led astray by prejudice against them, or by sympathy and favor for the private citizen. CARTTER, Ch. J., dissenting. Robinson, Receiver, vs. Wright. LEIGH ROBINSON, RECEIVER IN THE SUIT OF GEORGE W. FARANT ET AL., VALICIA FARANT ET AL., VS. EMILY C. WRIGHT. IN EQUITY.No. 3456. A wooden building standing upon blocks and rollers so that it could be removed without disturbing the freehold, and which was built for the purpose of removal if necessary, may be regarded as a movable fixture, and the personal property of the tenant. STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This is a bill in equity filed on behalf of certain infants, by their next friend, for the partition or sale of lot 17, square 269, in the city of Washington, in which the infants have an interest in common with adults. On December 3, 1873, an order was made that the auditor take testimony as to the condition of the property, and to report as to whether the premises were susceptible of partition, or whether it would be for the interest of the infant complainants that the property in question be sold for the purpose of disbursing the proceeds among the parties interested. A sale was recommended by the auditor, and a decree was made in accordance therewith, and also appointing Leigh Robinson trustee to make the sale, and to rent the property, and collect the rents. On the premises there had been placed a dwellinghouse, erected by one Lewis W. Conner, who had sold the said house about a year prior to the commencement of this suit, to Emily C. Wright. The trustee demanded rent from her which she declined to pay. The trustee then obtained an order of court appointing him receiver of the rents and profits of the property, and ordering said Emily C. Wright to attorn and pay him such rents as had accrued as well as those that might thereafter become due, unless she should show cause why she should not so attorn. This order was made absolute. After various other proceedings in the cause, it coming to the knowledge of the receiver that said Robinson, Receiver, vs. Wright. Emily C. Wright was preparing to remove the house, he obtained an order on the 16th of December, 1874, restraining such removal, and which order was returnable on the 19th of the same month. On the day before that set for the hearing, the said Lewis W. Conner and Emily C. Wright engaged in the removal of said house, and it was thereupon ordered by the court that they be attached for contempt of court. On the day set for the hearing of the injunction, the answer of Emily C. Wright was read, alleging "that the house on lot 17, square 296, never was placed upon piles as alleged, and pinned to the ground, but is and always has been free from said lots, and purchased with her own money;" that "no copy of said bill or petition has been served upon her, or her attorney of record, as the rules of this honorable court require;" that "said writ has been granted ex parte without notice of such application to defendant or her attorney;" that "defendant had acted in good faith and upon what she believed, upon the information she was able to obtain, was the right of the matter." To this were added 1st. The affidavit of L. W. Conner, that he built said house, and built it for the purpose of removal, if necessary; and "that, something more than a year ago, and prior to the bringing of this suit, he sold the house, improvements, and right of possession to Mrs. Emily C. Wright," and further alleging misinformation as the cause of his disobedience to the order of the court. 2d. The affidavit of Geo. F. Rider that, some time during June or July last past, Leigh Robinson, trustee, stated to him, during the transaction of other business, that he purchased the realty, to wit, lot 17, square 296, without knowing that there was any house thereon, and that he had thus acquired it without paying money therefor. 3d. The affidavit of Joseph Murdock, "that the said house was, when I was called, standing on blocks or rollers ;" and further, "that to remove this house in a proper manner, would require about one week of time." Upon this showing Mr. Justice Wylie dissolved the injunction and ordered that Emily C. Wright be allowed to |