8 Vict. 0. 18, 8. 85. to enter upon the land: Wing v. Tottenham etc. Ry. Co., supra. The entry into possession and payment in of deposit does not constitute between the parties the relation of vendor and purchaser, so as to enable the company to call for the owner's title: Martin v. L. C. and D. Ry. Co., 17 L. T. (N.S.) 487; but it is a "compulsory taking" of lands within sec. 123, post, p. 238: Doe d. Armitstead v. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co., 16 Q. B. 526, 536 (disapproving of Brocklebank v. Whitehaven Junction Co., 15 Sim. 632). So long as the bond is given, and the deposit made before the expiration of the time fixed for the exercise of the compulsory powers, the promoters are at liberty to enter into possession even after that time: Sparrow v. Oxford etc. Ry. Co., 2 De G. M. & G. 94; 9 Hare, 436. But the power must be used fairly with a view to carrying out the objects of the Act. It is not a proper user of it to make an entry on the land-not for the purpose of constructing the works within the period limited by the powers of the Act—but with a view of acquiring a right of ownership, or a right equivalent to a right of ownership, with the idea of constructing the works under that right or quasi right after the period limited by the Act for the construction of the works has expired": Loosemore v. Tiverton etc. Ry. Co., 22 Ch. D. 25, per Jessel, M. R., at p. 55. Nomination of Surveyor.-The nomination of the surveyor employed by the company does not necessarily invalidate the bond: Langham v. G. N. Ry. Co., 1 De G. & Sm. 486. The valuation of a house by a surveyor who does not for that purpose enter the house valued, and examine it, is not a proper valuation: Cotter v. Metr. Ry. Co., 10 Jur. (N.S.) 1014. The instrument by which the surveyor is appointed need not particularly specify either the lands which the surveyor is to value or the course of the railway: Poynder v. G. N. Ry. Co., 16 Sim. 3; 2 Ph. 330. Sureties. The approval of sureties may be given by the justices on the ex parte application of the promoters: Langham v. G. N. Ry. Co., 1 De. G. & Sm. 486; Bridges v. Wilts etc. Ry. Co., 16 L. J. Ch. 335. Sureties are required as well when the bond is given by a corporation as when it is given by an individual: Barker v. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co., 2 De G. & Sm. 55. See the special provisions of the Railway Companies Act, 1867, post, p. 196. Payment into Court.-The money is paid in to an account entitled "Ex parte the Promoters of the Undertaking -The account of the landowner": Poynder v. G. N. Ry. Co., supra. Rules 39 and 77 (c) of the Supreme Court Funds Rules, 1884, do not apply to payments in under this section. Interest. Interest on the amount payable for compensation runs from the time when the promoters enter into possession under this section: Rhys v. Dare Valley Ry. Co., L. R. 19 Eq. 93; In re Navan and King's Court Ry. Co., 10 Ir. R. Eq. 113. 66 Form of Bond.-A bond of which the condition is to pay on demand" is bad in form, since the Legislature intended that that which was directed to be done should be done at the first moment that it could be done, and of the mere motion of the company, without any demand: Poynder v. G. N. Ry. Co., supra; Langham v. G. N. Ry. Co., 5 Ry. Cas. 263. A bond which is given to several tenants in common, but which is given to them jointly, is irregular: S. C. A bond framed in the alternative to pay to the vendor, or on demand to pay into the bank, is a departure from the provisions of the Act, and violates the object of the Act, which is to protect the interests of persons under disability: Poynder v. G. N. Ry. Co., supra; Dakin v. L. and N. W. Ry. Co., 3 De G. & Sm. 414. Similarly a bond conditioned for payment into the Bank, "or otherwise," is not in compliance with the statute: Hoskins v. Phillips, 5 Ry. Cas. 560. A bond conditioned for payment to the owner at any time hereafter" is not a proper bond within the meaning of the section: Cotter v. Metr. Ry. Co., 10 Jur. (N.S.) 1014. It is sufficient if the bond secures payment to the claimant, his executors, &c., without referring to the parties interested in the premises: Willey v. S. E. Ry. Co., 1 M. & G. 58. The Railway Companies Act, 1867.-By sec. 36 of this Act (30 & 31 Vict. c. 127) special provision is made for the entry on lands by railway companies-the following is the section in extenso: 8 Viot. 0. 18, 8. 85. Vict. c. "xxxvi. Where, after the passing of this Act" (20th 30 & 31 of August, 1867) "a company" (i.e. a railway company according to the definition in sec. 3 of the Act) “exercise 127, s. 35. 8 Vict. c. 18, s. 85. 30 & 31 Amend- 85 of 8 Vict. c. 18. s. 86. Upon deposit being made cashier to give receipt. the powers conferred on the promoters of the undertaking by section 85 of the L. C. C. Act, 1845, the following provisions shall have effect: "(1.) The surveyor to be appointed as in that section provided, shall be appointed by the Board of Trade, instead of by two justices, and all the provisions of that Act relative to a surveyor appointed by two justices, shall apply to a surveyor so appointed by the Board of Trade: "(2.) The company shall give not less than seven days' notice of their intention to apply to the Board of Trade for the appointment of a surveyor to any party interested in, or entitled to sell and convey the lands in question, and not consenting to the entry of the company: (3.) The valuation to be made by the surveyor so appointed shall include the amount of compensation for all damage and injury to be sustained by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred by the said section, as far as such damage and injury are capable of estimation: "(4.) The sureties to the bond to be given by the company under that section shall, in case the parties differ, instead of being approved of by two justices, be approved of by the Board of Trade, after hearing the parties." See, as to the last sub-section, Loosemore v. Tiverton and N. Devon Ry. Co., 22 Ch. D. 25, 32. LXXXVI. The money so to be deposited as last aforesaid (a) shall be paid into the Bank in the name and with the privity of the Accountant-General (b) of the Court of Chancery in England or the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, to be placed to his account there to the credit of the parties interested in or entitled to sell and convey the lands so to be entered upon, and who shall not have consented to such entry, subject to the control and disposition of the (a) Sec. 85. (b) Now Paymaster-General. said Court; and upon such deposit being made, the LXXXVII. The money so deposited as last aforesaid shall remain in the Bank, by way of security to the parties whose lands shall so have been entered upon for the performance of the condition of the bond to be given by the promoters of the undertaking, as herein-before mentioned (a), and the same may, on the application by petition (b) of the promoters of the undertaking, be ordered (c) to be invested in Bank Annuities or Government Securities, and accumulated; and upon the condition of such bond being fully performed it shall be lawful for the Court of Chancery in England or the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, upon a like application (d), to order (e) the money so deposited or the funds in which the same shall have been invested, together with the accumulation thereof, to be repaid or transferred to the promoters of the undertaking, or if such condition shall not be fully performed, it shall be lawful for the said Court to order (f) the same to be applied in such manner as it shall think fit for the benefit of the parties for whose security the same shall so have been deposited. (a) Sec. 85. (d) Form 53. (b) Form 51. (c) Form 52. 8 Vict. c. 18, s. 86. s. 87. Deposit to remain as a security, and to be applied under the direction of the Court. The meaning of sec. 87 is that the deposit stands as a security for the landowner's benefit in case the promoters are unable to perform their bond. If the bond is performed the promoters can apply for payment out of the deposit, but if the promoters are unable to pay, the application is made by 8 Viot, o. 18, 8. 87. the landowner: In re Mutlow's Estate, 10 Ch. D. 135; In re Fooks, 2 McN. & G. 357. Upon the fulfilment of the condition of the bond the promoters are entitled to payment out of the entire fund without any deduction: In re Neath and Brecon Ry. Co., L. R. 9 Ch. 263; ex p. Stevens, 2 Ph. 772. Therefore no direction can be given for payment of costs out of the fund, S.C.: ex p. G. N. Ry. Co., 5 Ry. Cas. 269; nor is the fund available for payment off of a mortgage on the lands entered upon: Martin v. L. C. and D. Ry. Co., L. R. 1 Ch. 501. See also ex p. Birmingham and Wolverhampton Ry. Co., 1 H. & M. 772; In re Wimbledon and Dorking Ry. Act, 9 L. T. (N.S.) 703; ex p. Stevens, supra; ex p. G. N. Ry. Co., supra. If after entry into possession by the company under sec. 85, the claimant comes to an agreement with the company as to the amount of the purchase-money, the deposit in Court will not be paid out to the promoters unless the claimant be joined as a party or served with the petition: In re S. Wales Ry. Co., 6 Ry. Cas. 151; contra, ex p. E. Counties Ry. Co., 5 Ry. Cas. 210. But if the consent in writing of the latter to the prayer of the petition is obtained this will be sufficient: ex p. Mayor of Huddersfield; In re Dyson, 46 L. T. 730. See also ex p. Carmarthen etc. Ry. Co., 2 N. R. 515; ex p. Carey, 10 L. T. 37. If the claimant appears merely to consent he will not, except under special circumstances, be allowed his costs of appearance: In re Tottenham and Hampstead J. Ry. Co., 14 W. R. 669. On a petition by promoters for the payment out to them of the deposit made under sec. 85, the fact of the bond being in the possession of and produced by the promoters has been taken as sufficient evidence that the conditions of the bond have been complied with: In re L. and N. W. Ry. Co., 26 L. T. (N.S.) 687. Where the sum ultimately awarded by way of compensation is larger than the sum deposited, an order may be made on one and the same petition, that the balance shall be brought into Court to the same account, that the whole may be invested and the dividends paid to the tenant for life: ex p. London Tilbury and Southend Ry. Co., 1 W. R. 533; Ashford v. L. C. and D. Ry. Co., W. N. 1866, p. 288. An order may be made on the petition of the company for payment out to the secretary of the company if the original petition bears the company's seal, which, however, need not |