Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/27

 BEOOQ V. TOLEDO, PBOBU & WiilSAW B. 00. 16 �Secob and othera ». Toledo, Peobia &; Warsaw E. Co. and otherp. �{Circuit Oovrt, N. D. Illinois. January 9, 1882.) �L Railroads— Injuet to Passenqbh— Contmbutort NBGLiaKNCB. �A passenger, on a train that had approached a station and was still moving ' slowly, stood on the lower step of a car, in the act of stepping to the platform of the station, wlien, in consequonce of tiie car being nioved forward with a jerk, lie was tlirown upon the platform and injured. Held, that lie was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to alight f rom the train wliile it was in motion. �On the Intervening Petition of John Eawls. �John Lyle King and Sanders dk McKinney, for petitioners. �John M. Jewett and Tenny, Flower d Cratty, for defendants. �DauMMOND, G. J. The property of the railroad was sold under a deeree of the court. Certain funds were paid into court, and upon the reorganization of the company by the purchasers under the sale a bond was filed in court for the purpose of meeting all claims which might be sustained by the court while, the property was in the posses- sion of, and operated by, the receiver under its order. This is a peti- tion asking compensation for an in jury which the petitioner sustained in consequence of a fall while attempting to get offi the train wh en it was operated by the receiver. On the fifth day of March, 1878, the petitioner took passage on the train at Bushnell, in this state, for Scottsburg. The speed of the train. on arriving at Soottsburg station was lessened for the purpose of stopping at that station. While the train was still slowly moving, three passengers left it, reaohing the platform at the station in safety; but while the train was still in motion the petitioner went out upon the rear end of the forward car of the train and was standing on the lower step, the train having apparently almost ceasedto move; and while he was in the act of stepping from the, car to the platform of the station, the car was moved forward with a jerk, in consequence of which the petitionei- was snddenly thrown with violence upon the platform of the station and injured. �Admitting these to be the material facta establisbed by the evi- dence, the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to recover, waiving all other questions which have been made and argued in the case. The principal difBculty in this case arises from what the. evi- dence shows, and in fact what all our experience proves, that the passengers who intend to leave a train at a particular station where ��� �