INDEX. 555

COMMISSIONS— Continued.

4. When several sales are made at different times, the commissions of the
trustee should be calculated upon each sale separately, and the sales
are not to be treated as if made at one time. Goodbum and Wife vs.
Stephens, 420.
COMMISSIONERS TO MAKE PARTITION.

See PARTITION.
CONCURRENT JURISDICTION.

1. When two courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the, same subject
matter, the court in which the suit is first commenced is entitled to re-
tain it. This rule is vital to the harmonious movement of the courts,
and any other would unavoidably lead to perpetual collisions and be
productive of the most calamitous results. Brooks vs. Delaplaine, 351.

2. The powers of the County Courts, within the boundaries assignee them
are equal in every respect to the powers of the Court of Chancery. Ib.

3. The jurisdiction of courts of equity in cases of dower, is concurrent
with that of courts of law, and if the legal title to dower be admitted
or settled, equity -will proceed to the assignment of the dower, and
will also compensate the widow in damages for its detention. KMall
•vs. Trimbk, 143.
See JCKISDICTION, 7, 15.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. When the legislature transcends its authority, the courts of justice in
the discharge of their duties are bound to pronounce its acts void, but
this high power of the judiciary should be exercised with great cau-
tion, and only when the act of the legislature is manifestly beyond the
pale of its authority. Wilson vs. Hardesty, 66.

2. Retrospective laws and laws divesting vested rights,unless ex post facto,
or impairing the obligations of contracts, do not ftfi within the provi-
sions of the constitution of the United States, however repugnant they
may be to the principles of sound legislation. Ib.

3. The act of 1845, ch. 352, as affecting pre-existing contracts, tainted with
usury, is neither prohibited by the constitution or bill of rights of
this state, nor does it come within the provision contained in the con-
stitution of the United States, prohibiting the states from passing ex
post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. Ib.

4. Nothing can be cleare» than that private property cannot be taken for
public use, without making just compensation to the owner. Hamilton
vs. Jinnapolis and Elkridge Rail Road Company, 107.

5. The right of eminent domain gives to legislative authority the control of
private property for public uses, subject to the condition, that a rea-
sonable and just compensation shall be made to the owner. Ib.

f). Any attempt to exert this power without complying with the condition,
would be at war with the great principles of natural justice, and in
direct conflict with the constitution of the United States. Ib.

1. The principle that the right of eminent domain authorizes the govern-
ment to take and appropriate private prpperty for public uses, without
making compensation to the owner, unless there is some provision in