HARNESS VS. CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL CO. 259

the act of assembly are, "that unless good cause be shown
against the inquisition, it shall be affirmed by the court and re-
corded." And, therefore, assuming the inquisition, when thus
affirmed and recorded, to constitute a debt, it is a debt of record,
and consequently not merged by the judgment, which is of no
higher dignity.

But, according to my view of this case, the question of mer-
ger does not arise. The legislature, by the act of 1824, pro-
vided a mode by which, in certain specified contingencies, this
company was authorized to appropriate to its use the land of
individuals without their consent, upon the condition, that they,
the company, should pay therefor such a valuation as a jury
should put upon it. This valuation, by the letter of the law,
is made conclusive upon all persons, and is to be paid by the
company, and it is only on payment thereof that the title passes.

Now, it seems to me very clear, no matter what arrangements
are made between the parties for the payment of the money, or
what securities may be given for. it, the owner has a right
at any time upon failure of the securities, to call upon the
court to protect his property from injury until the money is
paid. It does not appear to me to be material, whether the
owner is bound in any active measures he may adopt to recover
the money, to proceed exclusively upon his judgment or not.
If he can show, as is shown here, that the judgment was ren-
dered for the money which the jury fixed as the value of the
land; that it has not been paid; and that there is serious dan-
ger of-irreparable injury to the owner, unless this court will in-
terpose to hinder the company from using the property, I can-
not see how his request for the aid of the court can be refused.
The law says, (except during the pendency of the proceedings
provided for in the 19th section,) that the owner's property
shall not be taken from him, and used for the purposes of the
company, until the valuation put upon it by the jury is first
paid. And I cannot see how this right can depend upon the
character or form of the security given by the company for the
payment. If the owner has a right to insist upon the payment
of the money before his property is wrested from him, (and