556 INDEX.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—Continued.

the constitution restrictive of the power, cannot be maintained in
Maryland. Harness vs. Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, 248.

8. Such an appropriation by law without compensation, would be in con-
flict 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 impri-
soned, or disseized 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." Ib.

9. To say that the legislature has such power, is to confer upon it judicial
powers, and to confound those departments of government which the
declaration of rights says shall be kept forever separate and distinct.
16.

10. The legislature of this state has in no instance, in the exercise of the
right of eminent domain, omitted to provide compensation to the owner
of the property taken for public uses, and such provision was made by
the 15th section of the act of 1824, ch. 79, passed to confirm an act of
the legislature of Virginia, incorporating the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal Company. The 15th and 19th sections of the charter of this
company construed. Ih.

11. State insolvent laws, although constitutional in their action upon the
rights of their own citizens, are unconstitutional and void when they af-
fect the rights of citizens of other states. Potter vs. Kerr, 275.
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2.
CONSTRUCTION OF PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.

See PARTNERSHIP AND PARTNERS, 3, 4.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES.

1. Remedial laws are to be construed liberally to advance the remedy and
obviate the mischief, but they are not to be so expanded as to compre-
hend cases altogether beyond their purview. So to apply,and enlarge
the law, would be judicial legislation under the guise of interpreta-
tion. Franklin vs. PrankKn, 342.

2. The act of 1842, ch. 229, only provides a more summary and economi-
cal remedy, when cases abate either before or after decree, by the
death of the parties, and does not embrace the case of a decree which
has become dormant by lapse of time. Ib.

3. The act of 1793, ch, 43, forbids the restoring the landlord to the posses-
sion of the premises, when he is proceeding under that act, only when
the title is disputed or claimed by some person, in virtue of a right or
title accrued or happening since the commencement of the lease. JSoushy
vs. Wilson, 388.
See APPEAL, 1, 4.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 3, 10.

CORPORATIONS, 7.

DECREE DORMANT FROM LAPSB or TIME, 1.

DEEDS VOID UNDER THE INSOLVENT LAWS, 1, 7.