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. COOPER v. VIRGINIA. ELLETT v. VIRGINIA. CUTHBERT v. VIRGINIA. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. IN RE BROWN. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. HUCLESS v. CHILDREY. 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 VIRGINIA. Nos. 1057, 1055, 1056, 1058, 1142, 1217, 1216, 23. Argued January 21, 1890. - Decided May 19, 1890. The decisions Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U. S. 672; Antoni v. Greenhow, 107 U. S. 769; Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 269; Barry v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 550; Chaffin v. Taylor, 116 U. S. 567; Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572; Sands v. Edmunds, 116 U. S. 585; Royall v. Virginia, 121 U. S. 102; In re Ayers, In re Scott and In re McCabe, 123 U. S. 443, are reviewed; and, without committing the court to all that has been said, or even all that has been adjudged in those cases, on the subject of the act of the legislature of Virginia of March 30, 1871, to provide for the funding and payment of the public debt, and the issue of coupon bonds of the State under its provisions, it is now Held, (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 Ield; that in tendering coupons in payment of a Statement of the Case. judgment recovered by the State for taxes and costs of suit the taxpayer is entitled to tender coupons in payment of the costs as well as of the taxes. In Cuthbert v. Virginia it is Held; that the special license required by the act of March 15, 1884, as amended by the act of May 23, 1887, for the right to offer tax-receivable coupons for sale was a material interference with their negotiability, and impaired the contract. In Brown's Case it is Held; that whether the passage of a new statute of limitations, giving a shorter time for the bringing of actions than had existed before, as applied to actions which had accrued, so affected the remedy as to impair the obligations of the contract, within the meaning of the Constitution, Cepends upon whether a reasonable time is given for bringing such actions; that no one rule can be laid down for determining, as to all cases alike, whether the time allowed was or was not reasonable; that that fact must depend upon the circumstances in each case; and that under the circumstances of this case, and the peculiar condition of the securities in question, the limitation prescribed by § 415 of the Code of Virginia of 1887, with regard to the obligations of the State is unreasonable and impairs the obligation of the contract. In Hucless v. Childrey it is Held; that the requirement by the laws of Virginia that the tax for a license to sell, by retail, wine, spirits and other intoxicating liquors shall be paid in lawful money of the United States does not impair the obligation of the contract made by the State with the holders of the coupons of its bonds, that they shall be received in payment of taxes. In Vashon v. Greenhow it is Held, that the stitute of Virginia requiring the school tax to be paid in lawful money of the United States was valid. notwithstanding the provision of the act of 1871, and was not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. THESE cases, all of which grew out of the legislation of the State of Virginia regarding its tax-receivable coupons, were argued together; and, although having distinguishing features, it has been found by the court more convenient to treat them together in its opinion. MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY, on behalf of the court, prefaced the cases in detail, by a general review of the previous action of the court in this matter. He said: These cases, like the Virginia Coupon Cases, decided in April, 1885, and reported in 114 U. S. 269, and like Barry v. Edmunds and other cases argued at the same time, decided in February, 1886, and reported in 116 U. S. 550, et ́., arise upon certain tax-receivable coupons attached to bonds of the State Statement of the Case. of Virginia issued in reduction and liquidation of the state debt under the acts of March 30, 1871, and March 28, 1879. The present appeals are a continuation of the controversy arising upon said coupons as receivable and tendered in pay ment of taxes and other state dues. The origin of these bonds and coupons has been fully explained in former cases; but the proper disposition of the cases now to be considered will be greatly facilitated by presenting a connected résumé of the legislative acts relating to and affecting the said securities, and of the decisions heretofore made in reference to said acts. The state debt of Virginia amounted, prior to the late civil war, to more than thirty millions of dollars. After the war it became a matter of great importance to arrange this debt in such manner as to bring it within the control and means of the State. West Virginia had recently been separated from the parent State and had participated in the advantages of the money raised by the issue of the state securities. It was supposed by those who were best qualified to know the facts that at least one-third of the state resources was lost by this excision of territory, and the legislature of Virginia deemed it nothing more than equitable that the new State should bear one-third of the state debt. A proposition was therefore made to the bondholders of the State to receive two-thirds of the amount due them in new bonds payable thirty-four years after date, with coupons attached thereto receivable, after becoming due, in payment of taxes and other claims and demands. due to the State. This scheme was formulated by the act of March 30, 1871, entitled "An act to provide for the funding and payment of the public debt," and was acquiesced in by the public creditors, or the great majority of them, who accepted and received the bonds provided for in the act, which were looked upon as a favorite security in consequence of the value attached to the coupons as legal tender instruments in the payment of taxes and public dues. The act, amongst other things, provided as follows: "SECTION 2. The owners of any of the bonds, stocks or interest certificates heretofore issued by this State which are recog |