O
WHELAN v. NEW Yortx, L. E. & W. n. oo. 15
_ V pay'pre-existing debts of certain classes out of the earnings of the receiv- ,
ership, or even the corpus of the property, underthe order of the court,
with a priority of lien. Yet the discretion to do so should be exercised
with very great care. The payment of such debts stands prima facie on
a dif°t'ere‘nt,. basis from the payment of claims arising under the receiver-
ship, while it may be brought within the principle of the latter by spe-
cial circumstances. It is easy to see that the payment of unpaid debts
for operating expenses accrued within ninety days, due by a railroad ·com-
pany suddenly deprived of the control of its property due to operatives ,
in its employ,,whose cessation from work simultaneously is to be depre- C
cated in the interest both of the property andof the public, and the pay-
ment of limited amounts due to other connecting lines of road for mate-
rials and repairs, and for unpaid ticket and freight balances, the outcome
of indispensable business relations, where a stoppage of the continuance
of such business relations would_be a probable result in the case of 'non-
payment, the general consequence involving largelyalso the interests and
accommodation of travel and tratiic, may well place such payments in
the category of payments to preserve the mortgaged-property, in a large
sense, by maintaining the good will and integrity of the enterprise, and
entitle them to be made a nrst lien." Miltmbergorl v. Railroad Co.; 106 .
_ ’U. S. 286, 1‘Sup. Ct. Rep. 140. The exception to the masters report
in this case will be overruled, and the reportwill be confirmed; therde-
V cree to be entered, however, will dismiss the intervention without preju-
dice to any rights that intervenormay have to proceed as a general cred-
itor against the Houston & Texas Central Railway Company. V · V
V A i . _ Wnnnsu v. New Yom:, L. E. &, W. R.Co. 3 V V
‘·   Vttlircuit Oourt. N   0h1Z0_ E. D. February 19, 1089.) ° ‘
1. Ransom Cou1>Arxrr:s—Accri>nnrs sr Ca0ssrNes—-Guns. V V
A railroad company, having established at a street crossing a gate under the
care of ‘a flagman, is boundto close the gate when its cars are passing over
u the crossing, to gives. reasonable warning by whistle orbell, and to pass the
crossing at a reasonably safe speed. V V
2. Bam;. , , V . I
When a gate established by arailroad company at a street crossing is open,
a street-car driver may assume that the track is clear and safe, and is not neg-
ligent for passing through the gate without stopping to look or listen for a
train.
3. SAME-S·ro1-runs Arran Psssnve Gum.
Nor is it negligence, after-passing the gate, tostop and look and listen be-
_, fore crossing the track, if ordinary prudence or care be exercised to cross the
o the track, and avoid injury. ‘
4. SAME?-COLLISION wrrn Brnmnr-Osn—IMrurnn Nmenrenitcm. V ‘
. In a collision between a railroad train and astreet-car, at a street crossing,
. if the railroad servants are negligent the negligence of the street-oar driver
cannotbe 'imputed to apassenger in the streetyear, who is injured.! ‘ '
. *0n the general subject of negligence imputedm a passenger, see   Co. v.
Cooper’s Adm’r, §VVa.) 9 S. E., Rpp, 321; Railroad Co. v. Katac, (Tex.) 11 _S. W. Rep.
’ 127, and note;' Sh w v. Graft, B7 ed. Rep. 317, andnote. '* · = · ‘ r A ‘