Eailroads — Signals—Approach op Crossing. — The law requiring a railroad. train approaching a crossing of a street, road, or highway to give a signal of its approach, applies to all crossings, whether at grade or over or under grade.

Id. — Pleading—Ownership op Eailroad — Presumption of Operation —Admission in Answer. — In an action against a railroad company to recover damages for personal injuries occasioned by a train, an admission in the answer that the defendant owned the railroad track and rolling-stoek appurtenant to it was sufficient, in the absence of anything to the contrary, to justify the reasonable inference that the particular train occasioning the accident was at the time thereof being operated by the defendant.

Id. — Possession and Operation. — Where it is shown or is admitted by the pleadings, that a corporation was the owner of a railroad in the operation of which a wrong was committed, the presumption is that the road was in its possession and being operated by it at that time.

Id. — Lease op Eailroad — After-Acquired Eailroad Line — Parol Evidence op Lease. — A lease by a railroad company of its railroad lines described as then existing, together with the appurtenances thereunto belonging, under which the lessee was obligated to keep the leased property “in good order and condition and repair, operate, maintain, add to and better the same at its own expense,” cannot be construed as a lease of an additional line of railroad subsequently constructed or acquired by the lessor at its own expense, and parol evidence is inadmissible to give it such a construction.

Id. — Evidence of Operation — Parol Lease. — Evidence that the lessee under such a lease operated the additional railroad line subsequently acquired by the lessor, and accounted to it for the profits, is not of itself sufficient to show a parol lease of such additional line.

Id. — Liability op Owner for Operations of Eailroad — Lease by Statutory Authority. — A railroad company, in the operation of its road, cannot escape responsibility or avoid the discharge of the duties and obligations imposed under its franchise by voluntarily leasing its road to be operated by another company. It can only relieve itself from responsibility for injuries resulting from such operation by showing a lease made to the operating company under statutory authority.

Id. — Belief from Liability by Lease. — In this state, under the act of 1880, a railroad corporation may lease its railroad property to another company and will be relieved from personal liability for any injury resulting merely from the negligent operation and handling of trains by the lessee. Belief from such liability ean only exist where there is proof of a lease made as provided in the act.

Id. — Negligence—Burden of Proof to Escape Liability. — Where the corporation owning a railroad is sued for a wrong committed in the operation of a train, the burden is upon it to show that the train inflicting the injury was under the control and operation of some other company by virtue of the lease of the road. In the absence of such a showing, an erroneous statement by the court in its instructions to the jury to the effect that the defendant admitted the operation of the train, is immaterial.

Id. — Contributory Negligence — Instructions—Evidence.—In an action to recover damages for alleged negligence of the defendant, the court can instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant on the ground of the contributory negligence of the person injured only when the evidence conclusively establishes such contributory negligence, and no deductions or inference other than contributory negligence can be drawn by the jury from the evidence. In this case, the evidence is reviewed, and is held not to warrant such an instruction.

Id. — Death of Wife and Mother — Action by Husband and Children —Measure of Damages. — In an action by a surviving husband and children to recover damages for the death of their wife and mother, the husband is entitled to recover the value of the present and future services of the “wife and companion,” and the children the value of the mother’s “nurture and instruction, moral and physical, and intellectual training,” and the jury may award such a lump sum for damages as will fully compensate the plaintiffs, both husband and children, for the pecuniary value to them of the life of the wife and mother.