By the clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which relate to the entry upon lands by the promoters of the undertaking (u), it is, in effect, provided, that the promoters shall not, without the consent of the owners and occupiers, enter (v) upon any land, (except for the purpose of making surveys and other similar purposes specified in the act,) until they have paid or deposited the purchase-money or compensation for the same: if, however, before the amount of purchase-money or compensation has been determined by agreement, award, or a verdict, they are desirous of entering, they are enabled to do so, upon making such deposit and giving such bond by way of security as are specified in the 85th section of the act: this security must be for the value of all the land comprised in the notice of purchase given by the promoters under the 18th section, although the proposed entry be upon only a part of such land (w); no prior notice to the landowner of the intention of the promoters appears to be necessary (x): the deposit is to remain as a security for the performance of the bond, and is to be applied under the direction of the Court of Chancery (y); and it will not be paid to the company without notice to the landowner, although the purchase may have been completed by agreement, and the purchase-money paid (z); he does not, however, seem to have any hen upon it for his costs payable by the promoters (a). Any wilful entry by the promoters, without consent and before payment or deposit, is made the subject of a 10l. penalty: and the retention of possession after conviction in such penalty renders them liable to a penalty of 25l. per diem (b): but the penalties are not incurred by an entry after payment or deposit made to or in favour of parties who were believed to be but "were not actually entitled (c): in case of an unlawful refusal by the landowners or occupiers to give up possession or permit an entry, the promoters of the undertaking can claim the assistance of the sheriff (d): and a landowner who has by bis silence and conduct encouraged a company to carry on their works, upon the supposition that they were entitled to enter and take the land in question, and who subsequently disputes the terms of the contract, is not entitled to an interlocutory in junction to restrain them from so entering (e).

Alterations in value of estate, or failure of consideration.

As to entry upon, and taking possession of, lands by Railway Companies, etc. before completion of purchase.

(r) Magyennis v. Fallon, 2 Moll. 588.

(s) See 2 Moll. 588.

(t) Supra, p. 116 et seq.

(u) Sect. 84 to 92.

(v) This extends to a subterraneous entry; see Ramsden v. Manchester Railway Company, 5 Rail. Ca. 552; in a late case the Court refused an injunction, when the entry had been merely for surveying and setting out the line, and the company were no longer in possession: Fooks v. Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway Company, 5 Ha. 199.

(w) Barker v. North Staffordshire Railway Company, 2 De G. & S. 55; and as to the form of the bond, see S.C. and Poynder v. Great Northern Railway Company, 2 Ph. 330; Langham v. same Company, 1 De G. & S. 486; and Hoskins v. Phillips, 5 Rail. Ca. 5G0; 3 Exch. 163; and, generally on the construction of the 85th section, Willey v. South-Eastern Railway Company, 6 Rail. Ca. 100. In Rankin v. East and West India Docks Company, 14 Jur. 7, Lord Langdale, upon the application of mortgagees, restrained the Company from prosecuting their works until they had paid or tendered to the mortgagees the compensation required by the Act, (see s. 114): but held that he had no jurisdiction to restrain the Company from keeping possession of the premises.

(x) Bridges v. Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway Company, 11 Jur. 315.

(y) Sect. 87.

(z) Ex parte South Wales Railway Company, 6 Rail. Ca. 151.

(a) Ex parte Stevens, 2 Ph. 772.

(b) Sect. 89; see Hutchinson v. Manchester Railway Company, 15 Mee. & W. 314; and Hutchinson v. East Lancashire Railway Company, 3 Rail. Ca. 748.

(c) See last note.

(d) Sect. 91.

(e) Greenhalgh v. Manchester and Birmingham Railway Company, 3 Myl. & Cr. 784.