upr000267 97

V C 3- However, i t is my view that i t is very unlikely that the D istrict would take such action and i f i t did, I believe that Court would have powe^ to postpone the action at least u n til an e lection had been had authorizing the sale of the bonds. One of the reasons which impel th is conclusion is that Section 9166 o f the Compiled Laws provides that the p la in t iff must within th irty days a fter fin a l judgment determining the value of the property condemned pay the sum of money assessed. Section 9167 says that payment may be made to the de­fendants or the money may be deposited in Court fo r the defend­ants. I f the money be not so paid or deposited, the defendant may levy an execution and i f the money cannot be obtained by levy of execution ’’the Court, upon a showing to that e ffe c t , must set aside and annul the entire proceeding, and restore possession o f the property to the defendants, i f possession has been taken by the p l a i n t i f f .” You can see that i t would be rather foolhardy fo r the D istrict to proceed with the condemna­tion action unless i t were in position to promptly pay the award made by the t r ia l Court. This fa ct would also furnish a reason fo r the t r ia l Court to postpone the t r ia l o f the case i f the bonds had not been authorized or sold prior to the commencement of the action . E. E. Bennett/t. 1? 3 1 Q L. C. c .