6 -   > FEDERAL REr·oR1·ER.
position to be debarred from the fruit of the order {that is, we should
not be put in a position to be enjoined on the ground that we had not
made compensation before we undertook to do this.
The Court, (BREwER, J.) We have possession of the road, Mr.
Hitchcock, and, as far as we can, give permission to occupy during
the possession of the receivers.
Mr. Hitchcock. The receivers, we do not think, would be likely to
do it; but we submit, whether the Wabash, which is the party to do
it, will be put in a position, if they choose to seek damages, which
shall take away from us the fruit of this order.
The Court. That is a question, I think, which we ought to relegate
to the state courts to settle.
Mr. Hitchcock. This order will give us, conditionally, the right to
do what we desire, on the conditions specified.
The Court. Yes.
Mr. Hitchcock. That is, on condition of giving a bond in the sum
of $50,000 ? .
The Court, (TREAT, J.) I doubt very much whether the report of the
master, as presented to us, involves what you call proceedings for the
condemnation of property. This property is in the possession of the
officers of this court, and this proposed action is more in the nature
of a license to do certain things. That is the meaning of all this,-
that the receivers permit these things to be done upon your giving a
bond, which, of course, extends as long as we have any control over
the road. What may happen thereafter somebody else must provide
for.
Mr. Priest. I understand your honors to mean that no rights which
_ the receivers might have, by reason of their control of the road, to any
damages occasioned by reason of this interference, are to be deter-
mined in this matter; that this, in fact, amounts to an adjudication ·
of nothing, so far as the ultimate rights of the parties are concerned.
The Court, (BREWER, J.) In view of the situation, we think it would
be ungracious and improper in us to stand in the way of what is ap-
parently a public improvement; and as to the mere matters of com-
pensation, damages, and things of that kind, we do not think we ought
now to determine them.
Mr. Priest. Then the receivers may be so advised by counsel not
to institute a suit to recover damages by reason of this occupation;
in other words, this finding of your honors leaves it in that way, as I
understand ?
The Court, (BREWER, J.) The mere question of damages can be lit-
igated hereafter. As to whether and how much these receivers are
damaged during the brief time they occupy the road, may present a
different question.
Mr. Hitchcock. Is this bond to be made to the benefit of the re-
ceivers of the Wabash road, or its assigns?
The Court, (BREWER, J.) We have in our state a provision that