256 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

of the land, to protect his property, until the sum ascertained
shall be paid, would justify the using the land, and at the same
time withholding payment, would, in my opinion, be pushing
the provision of the section in question far beyond the intention
of the legislature.

If this position can be maintained, then any proceeding, legal
or equitable, which the proprietors of the land condemned
may adopt to protect it from injury until the value ascertained
by the inquisition is paid, will be an excuse for not paying,
whilst the company will be at liberty to proceed in the con-
struction of the canal without interruption. Certainly the ne-
glect to pay, when the sum is ascertained, is the fault of the
company, of which the consequences should be visited upon
them.

The principle settled by the Court of Appeals, in the case of
the Canal Company vs. .Rail .Road Company, 4 G. & J., 1, is,
that every law which is to wrest from an individual his prop-
erty without his consent, must be strictly construed; that is,
must receive a construction which will work as little injury as
possible to the individual, consistently with the great object of
public utility, for which, alone, this high sovereign power can
be exerted. My construction of this section, is, that it gives
to the canal company, the temporary 'right to enter upon the
land of individuals, with whom they cannot agree, and proceed
with their work, during the pendency of such proceedings,
whether by writ of ad quod danvnum, or otherwise, as may be
necessary to give them the title in the mode authorized by
their charter; but, that after such proceedings have been con-
cluded by the inquisition of the jury, and the affirmation of
that inquisition by the court, the temporary privilege given by
the act is at end, and they may be restrained by injunction, if
an attempt is made to carry it further. And such, unquestion-
ably, was the opinion of Chancellor Kent, in the case already
referred to, and in the other case cited in the 3d vol. of his
Com., 340, in the note.

I take it, therefore, as clear, that after the jury in this case,
had fixed the amount to be paid to these complainants, and