s. p. B. 00< V. ST. V.i H. & M. BT. 00. 691 �sons which Bhould impel us to adopt this latter course in the present case, if, upon examination, it is found to be -within our discretion to do so. �1. Whatever doubts we may have upon other questions, we hare none as to the absolute right of the respondents to build their railroad along the Une specified in their charter, and to cross the line of the complainant at the point in controversy, upon paying the damages, if it be finally decided that com- plainant is entitled to damages, and without such payment, if, upon final hearing, it shall be so determined. The most that the complainant is entitled to is its damages ; and if that be amply secured its rights are protected. �2. The case is peculiar in this : that the controversy is not as to the amount of damages, but as to the right of com- plainant to any damages. It is not a controversy that can be settled in a few days by the appointment of a board of commissioners to assess the damages of coUiplainant. As already suggested, the right of complainant to damages may depend upon a disputed question of fact, 'which cannot be determined until proofs are taken în the regular course of proceedings. Enough has already appeared in the case to satisfy us that a somewhat proiracted litigation may pre- cede the determination '^f the question of damages. Already the proceedings instituted in the staie court for the purpose of baving the complainant's damages assessed have been in- terrupted and delayed by removal thereof into this court, Vfhere they are now pending. We vrill not anticipate, much less decide, any of the questions that may arise here in that proceeding. It ir enough for che present to say that the con- troversy which must precede an assessment and payment of damages in this case may be protracted �8. The publïî! is interested in the construction of newlines of railway, -whioh are indeed only improved highways. The policy of the law is to encourage and facUitate such construc- tion. The statute of Minnesota provides for railroad cross- ings upon the theory that the public interest requires that these highways of comm^i-c' and travel should run in dif- ferent directions over the state, and that no one line shall ����
