836.

198; Tucker v. Horner, 10 Phila. (Pa.) 122,

68, 32 South. 760, 92 Am. St. Rep. 17;

666, 17 Am. Rep. 36; Benson v. Mc-

644, 39 Am. Dec. 314; State v. Wilson, 1 N. J. Law, 439, 1 Am. Dec. 216; Com. v.

691, 5 South. 785, 7 South. 48, 4 L. R. A. 113: Torrence v. Shedd, 112 Ill. 466; Casserleigh v. Wood, 119 Fed. 308, 56 C. C. A. 212:

48: Kimmel y. Kimmel, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 337, 8 Am. Dec. 672.

631; Proctor v. Clarke, 3 Redf. Sur. (N. Y.) 448.

108, 23 South. 806, 41 L. R.A. 760. 67

387.—Concealers. In old English law. Such as find out concealed lands; that is, lands

547, 19 South. 180; 54 Am. St. Rep. 118.

481, 46 Am. Rep. 342; Jones v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 492, 26 8. W. 1082, 47 Am. St.

579.

330; Tompkins v. Elliot, 5 Wend. (N. Y,.) 497; Gray v. Smith (C. C.) 76 Fed. 534.

654, 21 South. 344, 86 L. R. A. 615;

599. ‘These phrases in the constitution do not mean the general body of the law, common and statute, as it was at the time the constitution took effect; for that would seem to deny the right of the legislature to amend or repeal the law. They refer to certain fundamental rights, which that system of jurisprudence, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized. Brown v. Levee Com’rs, 50 Miss. 468. ‘Due process of law,” as used in the constitution, cannot mean less than a prosecution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed forms and solemnities for ascertaining guilt, or determining the title to property. Embury v. Conner, 8 N. Y. 511, 517, 53 Am. Dec. 325; Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill (N. Y.) 140, 40 Am. Dec. 274; Byrch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374. 397. And see, generally, Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 104, 24

235, 12 South. 439. See QOare; DILI- GENCE; NEGLIGENCE. —Extraordinary remedies. The writs of mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and some others are sometimes called “extraordinary remedies,” in contradistinction to the ordinary remedy by action.

763; Wright v. Wright, 3 Tex. 168.

78, 11 South. 404; Hood v. State, 56

204. 94 Am. Dec. 677. And see further

302, 82 South. 678, 92 Am. St. Rep. 81. —Preventive injunction. One which prohibits the defendant from doing a particular act or commands him to refrain from it.—Provisional injumection. Another name for a preliminary or temporary injunction or an_ injunction pendente lite.—Special injunction. An injunction obtained only on motion and petition, bigh ar e notice to the other party. Aldrich v. Kirkland, 6 Rich. Law (S. C.) 340. An injunction by which parties are restrained from committing waste, damage, or injury to property. 4 Steph. Comm. 12, note s.—Tempo injunction. <A preliminary or provisiona] injunction, or one granted pendente lite; as opposed to a final ot perpetual in-

149; Elkins v. Buschner (Pa.) 16 AtL 104.

140, 1 South. 773.

620, 22 South. 905.

422; Wright v. Wright, 70 N. Y. 98.— Concurrent liens. Maritime liens are concur-

579.—Local influence. As a statutory ground for the removal of a cause from a state court to a federal court, this means influence enjoyed and wielded by the plaintiff, as a resident of the place where the suit is brou ht, in consequence of his wealth, prominence, politi- . cal importance, business or social relations, or otherwise, such as might affect the minds of - the court or jury and prevent the defendant from winning the case, even though the merits should be with him. See Neale v. Foster (C. C.) 81 Fed. 53.—Local option. A privilege accorded by the legislature of a state to the several counties or other districts of the state to determine, each for itself, bY populae vote, whether or not licenses should be issued for the sale of intoxicating liquors within such districts. See Wilson v. State, 85 Ark. 416;

369; Com. v. Barnet, 199 Pa. 161, 48

324, 18 South. 111, 54 Am. St. Rep. 51.

112, 8 South. 56; State v. Gill, 89 Minn. 502, 95 N. W. 449; U. 8. v. Ducournau (C. C.) 54 Fed. 138; State v. Stapp, 29 Iowa, 552;

35, 10 South. 667.

633, 17 South. 704.

260; State v. Dowers, 45 N. H. 543. In & narrower sense, a night walker is a prostitute who walks the streets at night for the purpose of soliciting men for lewd punporee. _ Stokes .v.

340, 30 South. 831.

291, 7 South. 100, 7 L. R. A. 425, 18 Am.

156.

577; Pleasants v. Claghorn, 2 Miles (Pa.) 304; Bright v. McOuat, 40 Ind. 525: Garner v. Hannah, 6 Duer (N. Y.) 270; Wright v.

406, 22 South. 117.—Voluntary trust. An obligation arising out of a personal confidence reposed in, and voluntarily accepted by, one for the benefit of another, as distinguished from an “involuntary” trust, which is created by operation of law. Civ. Code Cal. §§ 2216, 2217. According to another use of the term, “voluntary” trusts are such as are made in -favor of a- volunteer, that is, a person who gives nothing in exchange for the trust, but receives it as a pure gift; ond in this use the ferm ‘is distinguished from “trusts for value,” the ‘latter being such as are in favor of purchasers, mortgagees, etc.