40 HUGHES' CASE.—1 BLAND.

may be pursued for the purpose of supplying such deficiency. If the
deficiency cannot be so supplied, with propriety and effect, then the
Court applied to can have no jurisdiction; and if it cannot be supplied
by any other Court, then the Act of Assembly must be treated as a nul-
lity, because of there being no tribunal competent to execute it.

George A. Hughes and Christopher Hughes, by their petition,
filed on the 11th of April, 1825, stated, that their father had died
intestate, seized of lands lying in Baltimore and Anne Arundel
Counties, which had descended to the petitioners and his other
children, who could not agree upon a division thereof; and that
the intestate had left a widow. Whereupon they prayed, that
commissioners might be appointed to make a partition of the
estate, &c.

BLAND. C., 11th April, 1825.—This is a petition founded on the
Act to Direct Descents, (1820, ch. 191, s. 13.) which declares, that
where the lands or estate lie in different counties the partition may
be made in the mode, therein prescribed, by this Court. It is the
first case of the kind that has been instituted here.

It may be observed in general, that where an Act of the General
Assembly directs anything to he done, the Legislature either pro-
vides the means to be pursued to effect the object, or it is partially,
or wholly silent as to the manner of proceeding. In the first case,
the mode provided must necessarily be pursued; but, in the latter,
the Legislature acts in part, or altogether upon the supposition,
that the enactment is, so far as it goes, or entirely, complete in
itself; and, that the rules of the Courts of common law, or of
equity are sufficient to assure to the citizen any right which he
may derive from it. If the prescribed means be such as can only
be executed at common law, or in equity, then the one, or the
other of those tribunals, must be clothed with exclusive jurisdic-
tion accordingly; or the enactment may be such as to allow them
to have concurrent jurisdiction. But, if its nature be such, that
the prescribed mode can be executed by neither; or the right given
be such, that, according to their several limited and settled modes
of proceeding, neither of them can grant proper redress, they cau-
not, in any way, supply the deficiency. Because, * even
47 upon English authority, a Court of justice cannot be per-
mitted in any case to legislate; Weale v. West Middlesex Wa.
Comp. 1 Jac. & Wal. 371; The Bank of Columbia v. Rons, 4 H. &
McH. 456; and because, by the Constitution of our Republic,
(Decla. Rig. Art. 6.) the three departments having been directed
to be kept forever separate, the judiciary has been expressly ex-
cluded from every species of legislation; and is precluded from
supplying any omissions of the Legislature, however obvious or
necessary it may be for attaining the object in view. Hence, it
clearly follows, that in all cases of this kind, even where the