K. P. B. 00. V. BT. P., U. & M. BY. CO. '693 �■where a prompt assessment cannot in ail probability be had, and where the right of the complaiuant to ftny damage is a matter of dispute, depending for its solution upon doubtful questions of law anu faet, a court of chancery mày, instead of stopping the progress of a great work of internai improve- ment, of general and public, as well as of private importance, require a bond to be given, and allow the construction to go on. The statute itself recognizes the propriety of substituting a bond for the actual payment of the damages, even after assessment, in case an appeal is prosecuted. See section 23, c. 34, St. Minn. �It is Baid to dissolve this injunction and accept a bond instead -would in effect authorize the respondents to commit a trespass, if not a crime, by laying their track across that of complainant. After this court has decided that upon giving bond the respondents may extend their track across that of complainant, and after such bond shall have been given and approved, the right of the respondents to go on with the con- struction of their line and to cross that of the complaiuant will be no longer open to dispute or question. The case is before us; our jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-mat- ter is complete. �The order will be that the injunction be dissolved upon the execution by the respondents to the complainant of a bond, with sureties to be approved by a judge of this court, in the sum of $5,000, conditioned that the respondents will pay ail damages whieh may be awarded or adjudged in favor of comi- plainant by reason of the construction of respondents' line of raiiway across that of complainant. �Note. See Northern, Paeifio Baûroad Go. v. St. Faul, Mînneapolis e ' Manitoba Raûway Co. 3 Fed. Rbp. 702, and Northern Pacifie Baûroad Oo. V. B. <e M. B. Co., ante, 298. ����
