Judge Jackson's opinion in these matters is dated November 23, 1957. On March 4, 1958, this Court decided Lyshak v. City of Detroit, 351 Mich. 230, the effect of which was to modify prior Michigan cases which held, or implied, that infant trespass automatically barred all rights of recovery against a land-owner whose premises contained a hazardous condition of which he had actual or constructive knowledge: Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1; Formall v. Standard Oil Co., 127 Mich. 496 (10 Am Neg Rep 402); Ryan v. Towar, 128 Mich. 463 (55 LRA 310, 92 Am St Rep 481); LeDuc v. Detroit Edison Co., 254 Mich. 86; Holland v. Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 296 Mich. 668 (9 NCCA NS 570); Morris v. Lewis Manfg. Co., 331 Mich. 252 (28 ALR2d 214). In the instant cases we have the allegation of an electrical substation containing high-voltage wires constituting a dangerous instrumentality.

Haynsworth, Perry, Bryant, Marion Johnstone, of Greenville, and Watkins, Vandiver Freeman, of Anderson, for Appellant, cite: As to the mere presumptionof facts not being evidence: 9 S.C.L.Q. 164; 189 S.C. 176, 200 S.E. 765; 10 R.C.L. 870; 217 S.C. 190, 60 S.E.2d 226. As to an ordinary display counter not constitutingan attractive nuisance and not being a dangerousinstrumentality: 66 So.2d 121; 25 S.C. 24; 157 S.C. 174, 154 S.E. 118; 186 S.C. 181, 195 S.E. 283; 108 S.C. 516, 95 S.E. 129; 185 S.E. 188; 199 S.E. 790; 3 S.E.2d 868; 92 P.2d 428; 35 S.E.2d 71; 18 S.E.2d 204; 139 F.2d 529; 115 F.2d 521; 62 F. Supp. 634; 195 So. 736; 6 N.E.2d 244; 160 S.W.2d 605; 296 N.W. 833; 148 S.W.2d 479; 159 S.W.2d 251; 91 P.2d 777; 71 N.W.2d 797; 32 A.2d 10; 194 A. 511; 184 S.W.2d 170; 124 S.W.2d 717; 120 A.2d 317; 287 P.2d 877; 278 S.W.2d 578; 272 S.W.2d 661; 267 S.W.2d 935; 111 N.E.2d 280. As to error on part ofTrial Judge in his charge on the law of attractive nuisance: 157 S.C. 174, 154 S.E. 118.

"'" See, also, Ryan v. Towar, 128 Mich. 463 (55 LRA 310, 92 Am St Rep 481); Petrak v. Cooke Contracting Co., 329 Mich. 564; Holland v. Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 296 Mich. 668 (9 NCCA NS 570). In Ryan v. Towar, supra, we said: "Mere toleration of a trespass does not alone constitute a license even, certainly not an invitation."

Even under the doctrine of ordinary care, such inspection could not be imposed upon Wurm or Krieghoff. Compare Roberts v. Lundy, 301 Mich. 726. Nor can recovery be predicated upon the doctrine of attractive nuisance, there being no proof of wanton or wilful negligence. See Habina v. Twin City General Electric Co., 150 Mich. 41 (13 L.R.A. [N.S.] 1126), LeDuc v. Detroit Edison Co., supra, and Holland v. Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 296 Mich. 668 (9 N.C.C.A. [N.S.] 570). The covenants not to sue contained the following language:

However, there are many cases involving stacks of railroad ties on the railroads' right of way and others involving piles of poles, wood piles and steel beams. See Morris v. Lewis Mfg. Co., 331 Mich. 252; Emery v. Thompson, 347 Mo. 494; Kelly v. Benas, 217 Mo. 1; Boyette v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 227 N.C. 406; Middleton v. Reutler, 141 App. Div. 517, 126 N.Y. Supp. 315; Branan v. Wimsatt, 54 App. D.C. 374, 298 Fed. 833; Baltimore City v. DePalma, 137 Md. 179; Lynch v. Knoop, 118 La. 611; Carr v. Oregon-Washington R. Nav. Co., 123 Ore. 259; Anderson v. Peters, 22 Tenn. App. 563; Pollard v. McGreggors, 239 Ala. 467; Lovell v. Southern Ry. Co., 257 Ala. 561; Holland v. Wisconsin Michigan Power Co., 296 Mich. 668; Martino v. Rotondi, 91 W. Va. 482. There appears to be no case decided by the courts of review in Illinois in which the court has been called upon to consider the applicability of the doctrine of attractive nuisance to a pile of lumber on private premises.