
    Richards v. The Des Moines Valley Railroad Company.
    1. Continuance: absence of counsel. The absence of counsel in attendance upon the District Court, is not sufficient ground for the continuance of a cause called for hearing in the Supreme Court.
    
    
      2. Railroads: injunction. Where a railroad company neglects and refuses to pay the compensation adjudged to be due the owner of lands, for the right of way over the same, it may be restrained by injunction from using such way.
    3. - Henry v. The Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company, 10 Iowa, 540, cited and followed.
    
      ■Appeal from, Wapello District Court.
    
    Thursday, April 6.
    The following facts compose this case: The defendants located their road across a tract of land owned by the plaintiff, had a jury’s inquest of the damages, which were assessed at $100, which was paid by the company. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, where a judgment of $4:00 was rendered against the company in favor of the plaintiff, for the right of way over said land, at the May Term, 1862, in the county of Wapello. Upon this judgment the defendants have paid $69.95, and no more, neglecting and refusing to pay the balance due thereon, although said company is still operating its road over said land. The plaintiff, by his bill setting up said facts, asks the court to restrain the defendant from any further use of said land for the purposes aforesaid. The defendants demurred to the bill, as not containing facts entitling the plaintiff to his injunction. Overruled, and, on the hearing of the cause, the court enjoined the defendants from operating its road over said land till the damages aforesaid were paid. The defendants appeal, &c.
    
      Strong and Withrow & Smith for the appellants.
    
      C. C. Bourse for the appellee.
    
      
       At a former term the appellant moved the court to continue the cause, for the reason that its counsel was necessarily absent from the court, in attendance upon the District Court of Lee county. The motion was overruled.
    
   Lowe, J.

Although this case is somewhat different in its facts and form of proceeding, yet it involves the same principle or question adjudicated and settled in the case of

Henry v. The Dubuque & Pacific Railroad Company, 10 Iowa, 540; Boston & Lowell Railroad Corporation v. Salem & Lowell Railroad Company and others, 2 Gray, 1; Horton v. Hoyt et al., 11 Iowa, 496. Upon the authority of these cases, and the reasoning therein contained, the decree below in this case will be

Affirmed.  