Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the Tyler term, 1878, and part of the Galveston term, 1879. Volume 50. Page: 627

                                
1879.]        KELLER V. CORPUS CHRISTI.          627
Opinion of the court.
city therefor; but any person interested in any such building
so destroyed or injured, may, within six months, and not
thereafter, apply in writing to the city council to assess and
pay the damage he has sustained, and if the city council and
the claimant cannot agree on the terms of adjustment, then
the application of such claimant shall be referred to three
commissioners, who shall be qualified voters and owners of
real estate in the city, one to be appointed by the claimant,
one by the city council, and the third by both. They shall
be sworn faithfully to execute their duty according to the
best of their ability; shall have power to subpoena and swear
witnesses, and shall give all parties a fair and impartial hearing,
and give notice of timeanud place of meeting; they shall
be qualified voters and owners of real estate in the city; shall
take into account the probabilities whether the building would
have been destroyed by fire if it had not been so pulled
down or destroyed; and may report that no damage should
equitably be allowed to said claimant. Whenever a report
shall be made and finally confirmed for the appraising said
damages, a compliance with the terms thereof by the city
council shall be deemed a full satisfaction of said damages.
The judgment in this case is sought to be reversed under
section 17 of the bill of rights in the Constitution of 1876,
which reads as follows: " No person's property shall be taken,
damaged, or destroyed, or applied to public use, without adequate
compensation being made, unless by the consent of such
person; and when taken, except for the use of the State, such
compensation shall be first made or secured by a deposit of
money."
This provision as to the deposit of money in advance, was
evidently intended more particularly to provide speedy adequate
compensation for property taken in the exercise of the
sovereign right of eminent domain, rendered more frequent
by the rapidly-increasing demand for railroads and other
-works of public improvement.
There is, however, a distinction between the exercise of