DECLARATION OF EIGHTS. 17

The legislature has no power to confer on courts of equity the jurisdic-
tion to determine legal rights in regard to which courts of law exercise
exclusive jurisdiction. The act of 1S88, chapter 478, limited. McCoy v.
Johnson, 70 Md. 492.

Section 224 of article 16 of the Annotated Code, providing that where
property is resold at the risk of a defaulting purchaser, the court may
direct any deficit to be paid by such purchaser, held not to violate this
article. Capron v. Devries, 83 Md. 224.

Legislation of the class of article 16, section 237, of the Annotated Code—
see notes thereto—does not violate this article and is free from constitu-
tional objection. Cummings v. Wildman, 116 Md. 312.

The act of 1845, chapter 253, empowering the Allegany county court
sitting in equity to decree in a suit therein pending the partition of cer-
tain real estate, etc., held not to violate this article. Acts of the legislature
are presumed to be constitutional. Davis v. Helbig, 27 Md. 462.

The act of 1896, chapter 246—see article 93, section 235, of the Anno-
tated Code—authorizing the grant of letters upon estates of persons absent
or unheard of for above seven years, held to violate this article. Savings
Bank v. Weeks, 103 Md. 605.

The act of 1825, chapter 190, purporting to aliolish the corporation
known as "The Regents of the University of Maryland," and to appoint
trustees composed of different persons, and to transfer to the latter all
the franchises and property of the corporation, held to be in violation of
this article. Meaning of the term "Law of the Land." It is difficult to
perceive how an unconstitutional act can be made constitutional and valid
by a subsequent acquiescence in it. University of Maryland v. Wllliams,
9 G. & J. 410. And see Daly v. Morgan, 69 Md. 476 (dissenting opinion).

The acts of 1890, chapter 73, and 1904, chapter 141, the manifest object
of which was to divest and postpone the vested rights and interests of
certain contributors to a jockey club acquired under the act of 1870,
chapter 89, and to give priority to certain debts of the club, held to riolate
this article. Md. Jockey Club v. State, 106 Md. 413.

The act of 1793, chapter 30, giving the appellant a summary process by-
execution, in the nature of an attachment, against its debtors who have in
writing made notes, etc., drawn by them negotiable at the bank, held not to
violate this article. Bk. of Columbia v. O'Kelly, 4 Wheat. 235.

When a person accused of crime by a sufficient indictment is subjected,
like all other persons, to the law in its regular course, this article is not
violated. Object of this article. Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 610.

Articles which are designed to be used in violation of the criminal law
and which can be used for no legitimate purpose, may be seized by the
police, and this article is not thereby violated. Replevin dismissed. Board
of Police Commissioners v. Wagner, 93 Md. 191.

The fact that special license fees are charged professional chauffeurs
does not deprive such chauffeurs of their property without due process of
law. Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 562.

The words "judgment of his peers" mean a trial by jury, and the words
"by the law of the land" (copied from Magna Charta) mean due process
of law according to the course and process of the common law. This
article referred to in upholding the power of the legislature to grant a
divorce. Wright v, Wright's Lessee, 2 Md. 452 (decided prior to the con-
stitution of 1867—see article 3, section 33, thereof).

Section 269 of article 23 of the Annotated Code, held not, to be in violsi-
tion of this article. Meaning of the phrase "Law of the land"; it is equiv-
alent to the words "Due process of law" as used in the United States con-
stitution. Baltimore Belt R. R. Co. v. Baltzell, 75 Md. 99.

Meaning of the words "judgment of his peers, or by the law of the
land." This article referred to in construing article 17—see notes thereto,
Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 641.

For a discussion of the meaning of "Due process of law," as used in
the 14th amendment to the constitution of the United States, see Hurtado
v. California, 110 U. S. 516.