LAVIN V. EMIGRiNT INDTJSTEIAIi SAVINOS BANK. 659 �his life, liberty or property but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land." �Eeferring to this provision, and that contained in the con- stitution of the United States, the court say: "What was the object of these restrictions? It could not be to protect the citizen from his own acts, for it would have operated as a restraint upon his rights. It must have been against the acts of others. But to oonstitute particular tribunals for the adjustment of controversies among them, to submit them- selves to the exercise of summary remedies, or to temporary privation of rights of the deepest interest, are among the com- mon incidents of life. Such are submissions to arbitration, such are stipulation bonds, forthcoming bonds, and contracta of service ; and it was with a view to the voluntary acquiea- cence of the individual, nay, the solicited submission to the law of the contract, that this remedy was given. By making the note negotiable at the bank the debtor chose his own jurisdiction. In consideration of the credit given him he vôluntarily relinquished his claim to the ordinary administra- tion of justice, and placed himself only in the situation of an hypothecator of goods, with power to sell on def ault, or a stip- ulator in the admiralty, whose voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court subjects him to personal coercion. It is true, cases may be supposed in which the policy of a country may set bounds to the relinquishment of private rights ; and this court would ponder long before it would sus- tain this action, if we could be persuaded that the aet in ques. tion produced a total prostration of the trial by jury, or even involved the defendant in ciroumstances which rendered that right unavailing for his protection." �This case is important as showing to what extent the express assent of the party to the relinquishment of consti- tutional guaranties for the protection of his rights of prop- erty will obviate the constitutional objection to the want of ordinary judicial proceedings for taking it from him. In Murray's Executors v. Hoboken Land e Insurance Company, 18 How. 272, it was held that the taking of property to sat- isfy a claim against a tax coUector for a balance due the gov- ��� �
