IN EE DEXTERVILLE MANUF'g & BOOM 00. 873 �bound to use proper means and efforts to protect himself from unnecessary loss or damage, and can charge the^pafty only for such damages as by reasonable endeavors and ex- pense he could not prevent. Walker v. Ellis, 1 Sneed, 514. Where there was a stipulation to keep a dam in repair, the cost of repairs is the only measure of damages, not damages for the mill lying idle. Fort v. Orndoff, 7 Heisk. 1(57. There is nothing in the principle adopted in Diish V. Fitzhugh, 2 Lea, 307, to change the rule above laid down on the Bubject of contributory negligence. The proximate cause of the injury to the petitioner's crops was her neg- ligence in turning her hoga eut when she knew they were destroying her crop, or failing to put them up after she saw them in the fields, or otherwise protecting her crops ; and the negligence of the defendants was only remote. I do not overlook the fact that there were some other animais than her own with hers; but, as to these, she could have kept them out in many ways, and she should bave done it. Petition dismissed at costs of petitioner. ���in re Dextebville Manuf'g & Boom Co., Sceanton Manuf'o & Boom Co., and another, v. Case, Eeceiver, etc. �{Oireuit Court, S. D. Wisconsin. December 10, 1880.) �1, Beceivbb — Claim fok Damages against a Raileoad Company — Company in Default for Inteeest. — The net earnings of a rail- road, while in the possession of a receiver appointed by the court, pending the foreolosure of certain mortgages upon the propeity, caii- not be applied to the paymcnt of clàims for damages which accrued during the operation of the road by the company, although such Com- pany was then in default for ihe non-payment of interest upon Ui» mortgage bonds �Demurrer. �Geo. H. Noyes and G. C. Prentlss, iot petitîoners. �E. C. J; W. C. Larned, îotiec&ivei. ����
