Cited by

98 (1907); Ellington v. Great Northern Railway Co., 96 Minn. 176 , Marengo v. Great Northern Railway Co., 84 Minn. 397 , 87 N.W.

Co. 96 Minn. 176 , ; Mattes v. G. N. Ry.

Co. 96 Minn. 176 , , and the Erdner case, just cited, so hold.

Co. 96 Minn. 176, 183 , , the court, in-speaking of the “turntable cases,” said: “The doctrine of those cases is founded on the conduct of the-owner of premises in keeping thereon unconcealed and unprotected dangerous instrumentalities, which are in their nature alluring and attractive to children of tender years.

Co. 96 Minn. 176 , ), and to make the railroad company liable for all damages to person or property sustained by any person in consequence of such failure or neglect.

Co. 96 Minn. 176 , ; Kelly v. City of Faribault, 83 Minn. 9 , ; 3 Dunnell, Minn. Digest, § 8927.

Co. 96 Minn. 176 , , and Erdner v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.

Co. 96 Minn. 176 , , while not necessary to the decision of the case, is well supported by the authorities, and is a careful and accurate statement of the law on this point.

Co. 96 Minn. 135 , , is to the same effect.

Co., 96 Minn. 176 , , relied on in this connection, are not in point; for the place of the accident in each case was the exclusive right of way of the defendant, and not, as in this case, a public highway.

Co., 96 Minn. 176 , , to the effect that the question whether, had defendant performed its duty in this respect, the children of plaintiff would have been prevented from going upon the yard grounds, was a question of fact for the jury to determine.