MASON ». li. E., E. & S. W. RY. 00. 715 �of internai improvement devised and executed in pursuance of the legislation of the state; and the state, having incurred debts through its construction and operation, had transferred whatever interest it had to trustees, for the benefit of its creditors, and therefore there existed in the creditors what- ever interest the state had in the canal, and the lands which had been used for canal purposes ; and, at the time the rail- way Company took possession of the land in controversy, the contract made for the benefit of the creditors was still binding upon the property. �I must assume, I think, also, that the original owners of the land used for the purposes of the canal had become abso- lutely divested in favor of the state of ail interest whatever in their property, and that the fact that the land ceased to be used for a canal did not re-invest the property in them. Thia being so, it follows that the foreclosure and sale of the prop- erty covered by the deed of trust, which -was given by the state for the benefit of the creditors of the canal, clothed the purchaser at that sale and the petitioner in this case with the title to the property in controversy; and that he could recover possession of the same by proper legal proeeedings in any court having jurisdiction of the case and of the prop- erty in controversy, the railway company having acquired no tïtle to the same. The exceptions, therefore, to this part of the master's report must necessarily be overruled. �The next question is whether the master has allowed a proper amount as compensation to the petitioner for the interest which he acquired by virtue of his purchase of the property. .The master felt great embarrassment, which is shared by the court, in determining this question, because the testimony upon the subject is very voluminous and conflicting, and it would be impossible to say, from the examination of the testimony, what is the true value of the property beyond ail cavil or doubt. I have concluded, on the whole, to make a reduction from the amount allowed by the master in his report. It is true that the price of property obtained at a sale under legal proeeedings is not always a true test of its value, and yet, in view of the great conflict of evidence in ��� �
