248 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

case to induce me to do so without subjecting the complainant
to costs.

Some of the defendants, it is true, have admitted the agree-
ment, and consented to a decree; but as the complainant has
failed in establishing his case against the infant defendants in
a point vital to his right to the interposition of this court, no
course is left but to dismiss his bill.

Assuming that the complainant gave the receipt to his
mother, in consideration of her agreeing to convey him this
land, an assumption, however, of which there is no evidence,
his possession, and enjoyment of the rents and profits for four
years, according to the proof, has most abundantly reimbursed
him, as well as for the improvements which he has put upon
the property.

[The decree in this case was reversed on appeal.]

WILLIAM HARNESS ET AL.

vs

THE CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO July Term, 1848
CANAL COMPANY ET AL.

[THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN—INJUNCTION—INTEREST—JUDGMENT—
MERGED.]

THE principle, that the right of eminent domain authorizes the government to
take and appropriate private property for public uses, without making com-
pensation to the owner, unless there is some provision in the constitution
restrictive of the power, cannot be maintained in Maryland.

Such an appropriation by law, without compensation, would be in conflict
with the sixth and twenty-first articles of the bill of rights, the latter of
which declares—"that no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or dis-
seized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in
any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the
judgment of his peers or the laws of the land.''

To say, that the legislature has such power, is to confer upon it judicial pow-
ers, and to confound those departments of government, which the declaration
of rights says, shall be hept forever, separate and distinct.

The legislature of this state, has in no instance, in' the exercise of the right of