Ù92 rEDKBAI( EBEOBTÇE, . �«rect a barrier noi to be passed.by others. It îs manifest from these considerations, and others that might be named, that the respondent companies ought to be permitted to com- plete their line aeross that of the complainant at the earliest moment compatible with the fuU and complete protection of the rights of the latter. That these rights car be fuUy and completely protected by requiring the respondents to give bond ■with approved security to pay the damages which may be awarded to complainant, is entirely clear. �But we are met with a question as to the power of thia court in a case of this character to adopt this course. It is not necessary to cite authority to show that to aocept such a bond is within the ordinary powers of a court of chancery when proceeding aecording to the general prineiples of equity. It is a mode of proeeeding, not only authorized by the general prineiples of equity jurisprudence, but it isiin common use in courts of ehancery, and espeeiallyin federal courts. . In patent cases, for example, where itis supposed that an injunction to restrain the use of a patented article may, operate injuri- ôusly, the complainant is protected by a bond to aecount for profits and pay damages instead of an injunction. It is only necessary to add that the federal courts of equity administer the same general prineiples in ail easeaand in every state, irrespective of local laws and state practice. If the court bas jurisdiction to try and determine a case in equity, it must determine it aecording to these general prineiples, which are the same in every state. U. S. y. Howland, 4 Wheat. 115; Boyle V, Zacliarie, 6 Pet. 658; Never v. Scott, 13 How. 268; Noonan v. Lee, 2 Black, 499. �It is not necessary, in view of these authorities, to decide what the power of a state court might be in a case of this character; but we see nothing in the statute which in our judgment ought to be construed to forbid a court of chancery of the state to accept a bond under the circumstances dis- closed by the record in this case. It may be suggested that a bond cannot be substituted for payment of the damages. After the damages are assessed, the amount ascertained, this may be so. But the question here is, whether, in a case ����
