Opinion of the Court. This objection to the act cannot be sustained. The Constitution declares that private property shall not be taken "for public use without just compensation." It does not provide or require that compensation shall be actually paid in advance of the occupancy of the land to be taken. But the owner is entitled to reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation before his occupancy is disturbed. Whether a particular provision be sufficient to secure the compensation to which, under the Constitution, he is entitled, is sometimes a question of difficulty. In the present case, the requirements of the Constitution have, in our judgment, been fully met. The third section provides that before the railway shall be constructed through any lands proposed to be taken, full compensation shall be made to the owner for all property to be taken or damage done by reason of the construction of the road. In the event of an appeal from the finding of the referees, the company is required to pay into court double the amount of the award, to abide its judgment; and, that being done, the company may enter upon the property sought to be condemned, and proceed with the construction of its road. We are of the opinion that this provision is sufficiently reasonable, certain and adequate to secure the just compensation to which the owner is entitled. The plaintiff asks, what will be its condition, as to compensation, if, upon the trial de novo of the question of damages, the amount assessed in its favor should exceed the sum which may be paid into court by the defendant? This question. would be more embarrassing than it is, if, by the terms of the act of Congress, the title to the property appropriated passed from the owner to the defendant, when the latter having made the required deposit in court is authorized to enter upon the land, pending the appeal, and to proceed in the construction of its road. But, clearly, the title does not pass until compensation is actually made to the owner. Within the meaning of the Constitution, the property, although entered upon, pending the appeal, is not taken until the compensation is ascertained in some legal mode, and, being paid, the title passes from the owner. Such was the decision in Kennedy Opinion of the Court. v. Indianapolis, 103 U. S. 599, 604, where the court construed a clause of the constitution of Indiana, declaring that no man's property "shall be taken or applied to public use, without a just compensation being made therefor" — substantially the provision found in the national Constitution. This court there said that "on principle and authority the rule is, under such a constitution as that of Indiana, that the right to enter on and use the property is complete as soon as the property is actually appropriated under the authority of law for a public use, but that the title does not pass from the owner without his consent until just compensation has been made to him." In the case now before us, the property in respect to which the referees made the award will be conditionally appropriated for the public use when the defendant makes a deposit in court of double the amount of such award, and it only remains to fix the just compensation to be made to the owner. But the title has not passed, and will not pass, until the plaintiff receives the compensation ultimately fixed by the trial de novo provided for in the statute. So that, if the result of that trial should be a judgment in its favor in excess of the amount paid into court, the defendant must pay off the judgment before it can acquire the title to the property entered upon, and failing to pay it within a reasonable time after the compensation is finally determined, it will become a trespasser, and liable to be proceeded against as such. And, in such case, if the plaintiff shall sustain damages by reason of the use of its property by the defendant pending the appeal, the latter will be liable therefor. The apprehension, therefore, that the plaintiff may lose its property without receiving just compensation therefor, is without foundation. Some stress is laid upon the possibility that the defendant may become insolvent before the proceedings below reach a conclusion, and become unable to pay any damages in excess of the amount it may pay into court. The possibility of such insolvency is not, in our opinion, a sufficient ground for holding that the provision made in the act of Congress for securing just compensation is inadequate. Absolute certainty in such matters is impracticable, and, therefore, cannot reasonably be Opinion of the Court. required. In determining the validity of the act of Congress, the presumption must be indulged that a deposit in court of double the amount awarded by three disinterested referees, appointed by the President, will amply secure the payment of any compensation that may be fixed at the trial in the court below. The record states that the defendant offered to pay into court double the amount of the award made by the referees. The offer to pay is not a compliance with the statute. The amount required to be deposited must be actually paid into court before the company can rightfully enter upon the lands sought to be condemned, or proceed with the construction of its road. The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Syllabus. McGAHEY v. VIRGINIA. BRYAN v. VIRGINIA. COOPER v. VIRGINIA. ELLETT v. VIRGINIA. CUTHBERT v. VIRGINIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. IN RE BROWN. 771 398 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. HUCLESS v. CHILDREY. s 10 SC 972 187 1439 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. VASHON v. GREENHOW. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF Nos. 1057, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1142, 1217, 1216, 23. Argued January 21, 1890. — - Decided The decisions Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672; Antoni v. Greenhow, (1) That the provisions of the act of 1871 constitute a contract between the State of Virginia and the lawful holders of the bonds and coupons issued under and in pursuance of said statute; (2) That the various acts of the assembly of Virginia passed for the purpose of restraining the use of said coupons for the payment of taxes and other dues to the State, and imposing impediments and obstructions to that use, and to the proceedings instituted for Syllabus. establishing their genuineness, do in many respects materially impair the obligation of that contract, and cannot be held to be valid or binding in so far as they have that effect; (3) That no proceedings can be instituted by any holder of said bonds or coupons against the Commonwealth of Virginia, either directly by suit against the Commonwealth by name, or indirectly against her executive officers to control them in the exercise of their official functions as agents of the State; (4) That any lawful holder of the tax-receivable coupons of the State issued under the act of 1871 or the subsequent act of 1879, who tenders such coupons in payment of taxes, debts, dues and demands due from him to the State, and continues to hold himself ready to tender the same in payment thereof, is entitled to be free from molestation in person or goods on account of such taxes, debts, dues or demands, and may vindicate such right in all lawful modes of redress by suit to recover his property, by suit against the officer to recover damages for taking it, by injunction to prevent such taking where it would be attended with irremediable injury, or by a defence to a suit brought against him for his taxes or the other claims standing against him; that no conclusion short of this can be legitimately drawn from the series of decisions reviewed by the court without wholly overruling that rendered in the Coupon Cases and disregarding many of the rulings in other cases, which the court would be very reluctant to do; and that to this extent the court feels bound to yield to the authority of its prior decisions whatever may have been the former views of any member of the court. In McGahey v. Virginia, Bryan v. Virginia and Cooper v. Virginia it is now Held, (1) That the provision in the act of the General Assembly of Virginia of January 26, 1886, which imposes upon the taxpayer the duty of producing the bond from which the coupons tendered by him in payment of taxes were cut, at the time of offering the coupons in evidence in court, is an unreasonable condition, in many cases impossible to be performed, so onerous and impracticable as not only to affect, but to destroy the value of the instruments in the hands of the holder who had purchased them; and is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States; (2) That the provision in the act of that Assembly of January 21, 1886, which prohibits expert testimony in establishing the genuineness of coupons so offered in evidence, is in like manner unconstitutional; (3) That it is questionable whether the act of that assembly of May 8th, 1887, which authorizes and requires a suit to be brought against the taxpayer who tenders payment of his taxes in coupons, as well as the acts which require their rejection, are not laws impairing the obligation of the contract. In Ellett v. Virginia it is Held; that in tendering coupons in payment of a |