Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/92

 80. PBDBBAIV.CEPOBTEE. �tracks at other places than t^tat which the Refendant had pro- vided for the purpose ? If the defendant has directly, or by implication, inyited Buph a, UEie of its .premises as wa^at- tempted by the plaintiff, the icivitation must be fpund in its conduct in perpiittipg others todo the same thing. -iThere was nothing in the nature of the defendaait's employaient at the freight-shed which, r^qi^ired him to .cross the defendant's, ti&ck at all. As an employe qi the lighter^ge, company, he wa,s protected to the-samp estent his employer wpjild have been. if the latter had beenan individual instead of aMcprpQr ration. . Jffe had a right tp use the whairf and tl^e freight-shed, fgr the purposes incident and, ajecessary for the, }oading,i ,ur>-. loading.and transportation of -the defendc^nfa-freight^; But, assuming that itwas impHed from this .that the en;iployef Qf the lighterage company naight go to or; f rO;m the freight-slied, overthe lands of the defendant tp reach the highways in the- vicinityof the freight-shed, if convenience should requir^,it, certainly was npt implied that thp, employes mightjChoo^e their own place for croseing the defendant's lands when-the defendant had already prpvided a place for crossing. The case is not as strong for the plaintiff as thecommon one where the owner of lands has allowed such persons as chose to do so, for their own convenience, to pass over them without hindrance. One who thus uses another's lands cannot cpm- plain if he encountersunexpeeted perils. Hounsell v, Smith,. 97 Eng.' Com. Law, 731 ; Balch v. Smith, 7 H. & N. 732; Nich- olson.v. Erie Ry. Co. 41 N. Y. 525. In this case the plaintiff and all who used the place; where plgintiff was injured knew it was devoted by the defendant to purposes which necessarily renderedit dangerousto others. �The case is destitute of a sirigle! oircum^tance fi;om which it can be inf erred, that the ;plainti^ was inpted or induced by the defendant's ppndujot to cross where he did,, There was merely a ,naked license to, fii:06s,,iin.plied fromprevious ajcqui- escence pn the part pjf the 4efen4ant. - If thoKe was aninvi- taJiion tocrosSjiat all, it was to cross, ,at tjje place whiphvthe drfendp,nt had prepared fors that purpose. f �■ The motion for a new trial isdenied. , ��� �