There being testimony warranting a finding that the municipal authorities had negligently left in one of the principal streets of the city a dangerous hole, and it being, under the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, who fell therein and was injured, a question of fact whether, *835under all of the existing circumstances, he exercised due diligence in endeavoring to avoid the fall, the case should have been submitted to a jury and not disposed of by the grant of a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.