
    TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. MAYER et al.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    November 29, 1910.)
    No. 2,039.
    1. Carriees (§ 320) — Aeraos fob Injuey to Passenger at Station — Questions foe Juey.
    lu an action against a railroad company for an injury to a passenger at a station, the principal question at issue, as to whether the station was properly lighted, held properly submitted to the jury under the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. § 1149; Dec. Dig. § 820.*
    Injuries to persons at stations, see note to New England R. Co. v. Hyde, 41 C. O. A. 550.]
    2. Cabbiebs (§ 333*) — Insteuctions.
    An instruction based on the assumption that a passenger in a ear standing at a station has no right to leave the car except in case of necessity, or when assisted by an agent of the company, held rightly refused.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Carriers, Cent. Dig. §§ 1385-1397; Dec. Dig. § 333.*]
    In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas.
    At Daw. Action by Mrs. Dora E. Mayer and others against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    F. H. Prendergast and W. I* Hall, for plaintiff in error.
    S. P. Jones, for defendants in error.
    Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

Under the evidence, the issues of negligence on the part of the defendant below, and of contributory negligence on the part of Mrs. Dora E. Mayer, were necessarily submitted to the jury. The trial judge in charging the jury covered all the issues in the case, and no exceptions were.taken by either party. It follows that the first, second, and third assignments of error, which relate to special charges refused, which, if granted, would’have substantially taken the case from the jury, are not well taken.

The remaining assignments of error complain of special charges refused by the court which seem to be based upon the assumption that a passenger in a car standing at a station and inviting the ingress and egress of passengers has no right to leave the car except in case of necessity or whén assisted by the railway company’s agents, and therefore none of these assignments ai;e well taken.

The real question at issue was whether the car station and surroundings were properly lighted, and under the accepted charge of the trial judge the vérdict of the jury cannot be dis+' — bed.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.  