The statute is usually construed as divesting the title of the owner of the land taken only upon payment of the compensation awarded,0 and this is necessarily the case when the constitution provides that the compensation shall be paid previous to the taking.10 In the absence of such a constitutional provision, the statute may authorize the taking of the land before payment. Such a statutory-provision has occasionally been construed as not transferring the title before payment of the award, but as merely giving a right of entry and occupation of the land as a preliminary to acquiring title by condemnation.11 But, in the absence of such a constitutionalprovision as that referred to, the fact that the constitution requires a just or reasonable compensation to he paid has not usually been regarded as prohibiting a statute authorizing the passing of the title before payment of the compensation, provided there is adequate provision for the ascertainment and collection of the compensation.12

8. Randolph, Eminent Domain, Sec.Sec. 231, 291, 362; 2 Lewis, Eminent Domain, Sec.Sec. 678-681, 872.

9. New Orleans & S. R. Co. v. Jones, 68 Ala. 48; Fox v. Western Pac. R. Co., 31 Cal. 538; Village of Depue v. Bansbach, 273 111. 574, 113 N. E. 156; Perkins v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 72 Me. 95: Mullan v. Belbin, 130 Md. 313. 100 Atl. 384: Williams v. New Orleans. M. & T. R. Co.. 6C Miss. G89; Horton v. Grand Rapids & I. Ry. Co., 199 Mich. 472, 165 N. W. 653; Provote v.

Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 57 Mo. 256; Flynn v. Beaverhead County, 49 Mont. 347, 141 Pac. 673; Manchester & K. R. Co. v. Keene, 62 N. H. 81; Erie County v Fridenberg, 221 N. Y. 389. 117 N. E. 611; Levering v. Philadelphia, G. & N. R. Co., 8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 459; Stacey v. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 27 Vt. 39; Jones v. Miller. - Va - . 23 S. E. 35; Port of Seattle v. Yesler Estate, 83 Wash. 166, 145 Pac. 209.

By a number of decisions it is held that the owner of the land has a lien for the amount of the unpaid compensation, either by force of the specific statutory provisions, or by analogy to a vendor's lien for the purchase price.13 Such decisions seem necessarily to imply

10. Southern Railway Co. v. Birmingham. S. & N. O. Ry. Co., 130 Ala. 660, 31 So. 509; Stein-hart v. Superior Court of Mendocino County. 137 Cal. 575, 59 L,. R. A. 404, 92 Am. St. Rep. 183, 70 Pac. 629; Asher v. Louisville & N. K. Co., 87 Ky. 391, 8 S. W. 854; Redman v. Philadelphia, M. & M. R. Co., 33 X. J. Eq. 165; Martin v. Tyler, 4 N. Dak. 278, 25 L. R. A. 838, 60 N. W. 392; Brown v. Seattle, 5 Wash. 35. See 10 Columbia Law Rev. at p. 245.

11'. Kennedy v. Indianapolis, 103 U. S. 599, 103 L. Ed. 550; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 34 L. Ed. 295; Fox v. Western Pac. R. Co., 31 Cal. 538; Cush-man v. Smith. 34 Me. 247; Salt

Lake City Water & Electrical Power Co. v. Salt Lake City, 24 Utah, 282, 67 Pac. 791.

12. Sweet v. Rechel. 159 U. S 380; Haverhill Bridge Proprietors v. Essex County, 103 Mass. 120; Appleton v. City of Newton, 178 Mass. 59 N. E. 648; Ballou v. Ballou, 78 N. Y. 325; Brewster v. Rogers Co., 169

Y 73, 58 L. R. A. 495; City of Pittsburg, v. Scott. 1 Pa. 309.

13. Organ v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 51 Ark. 235. 11 S. W. 96; New Bedford K. Co. v. Old Colony R. Co., 120 Mass. 397; Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571; Provoll v. Chicago

R. I. & P. R. Co., 69 Mo. 633; Frelinghuysen v. Central R, Co of New Jersey, 28 N. J. Eq. 388; In re New York. W. S. & B. Ky that the ownership of the land passes by the condemnation proceeding even before payment of the compensation, since one cannot usually have a lien on his own land.