254 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

company, might, even after the inquisition of the jury had been
ratified, have abandoned the route over the lands of the com-
plainants, and thus freed themselves from any obligation to pay
the valuation, still, as the company have not exercised this
right, but have, on the contrary, taken possession of the land,
excavated a part of it, and propose to cut their canal through
the entire line, their obligation to pay the sum awarded by the
jury, would seem to be incontestible. If the government had
omitted in the case of this company, to provide for compen-
sating the owners of property taken for the use of the canal,
its officers and agents, upon application, would have been re-
strained by injunction. Gardiner vs. Village of Newbury, 2
Johns. Ch. Rep., 162.

And having made provision for such compensation, and pre-
scribing the mode, in which the amount to be paid shall be ascer-
tained, and the canal company, having, in pursuance of the power
conferred upon them, condemned and taken possession of the land
of the complainants, nothing can be clearer, than the obligation
to pay the money. The argument, that it would be unreason-
able to require payment before the title passes, and, therefore,
that such pre-payment could not have been intended by the
legislature, does not seem to me applicable, because the pay-
ment and the passing of the title are simultaneous. The law
says, "on payment thereof," (that is on payment of the sum
awarded by the jury,) the company shall be seized. Some
difference of opinion has been expressed by the courts, with
respect to the period at which the compensation shall be paid,
but the weight of authority, and as Chancellor Kent says, the
better opinion is, that the compensation, or offer of it, must
precede, or be concurrent with the seizure and entry upon
private property under the authority of the state. 2 .Kent's
Corn., 340, note.

It is true, the 19th section of the charter of this company
authorizes it to enter upon the lands of individuals, when re-
quired for the purposes of the canal, when the consent of the
owners cannot be obtained, and to proceed to the execution of
such works as may be requisite. "And, that the pendency of