ever he has lost in consequence of the erroneous judgment. Any such order is part of the judgment in reversal. The judgment, in form, is, not only that the judgment of the court below be reversed, but that "it is considered, that the defendant be restored to all things which he has lost on occasion of the judgment aforesaid; " and the writ of restitution which is issued in pursuance of it, and in which the sheriff is commanded to levy the money of the chattels of the plaintiff below, or to arrest his person, is strictly an execution.¹ In crimes, at common law, there was no restitution, because the indictment was in the name of the king. But by 21 Hen. VIII (1530), c. 11, on conviction of larceny, the prosecutor was to have restitution of the goods. That act was repealed by 7 and 8 Geo. IV (1827), с. 27, 29, which provides that the court may order restoration to the owner or his representative, from the thief or the receiver from him; but not so, if the thing stolen was a negotiable security, which has come into the possession of a bona fide holder, for value, without reasonable cause to suspect that the paper was stolen.2 1. To withdraw from membership: as, to retire from a firm or partnership. Whence retiring partner, q. v. 2. In its application to bills of exchange, is 1 Commonwealth v. Kimball, 7 Metc. 308 (1843). 2 Bridges v. State, 37 Ark. 226 (1881). State v. Lowenhaught, 11 Lea, 15 (1883), Freeman J.; Webb v. State, ib. 664 (1883). United States v. Bonham, 31 F. R. 808 (1887). • United States v. Mickle, 1 Cranch, C. C. 268 (1803). Forsythe, Hist. Lawyers, 353. See 3 R. I. 206; 60 Iowa, 520; 3 Chitty, Pr. 116, m. See 3 Bl. Com. 18; 63 Ala. 483; 6 Fla. 29; 9 111. 300. 84 Bl. Com. 12-13. See Woolsey, Int. Law, § 132. 3. To avail one's self of the provisions of a law; to take such action in court as will secure one's self the benefits of a particular law: as, to take the bankrupt or insolvent law. 4. To apply for and secure; to procure: as, to "take out" a license, letters of administration or letters testamentary, a policy of insurance, a writ of any kind. See GRANT, 4. An appeal from a decree of a circuit court is not "taken" until it is some way presented to the court which made the decree, so as to put an end to its jurisdiction over the cause." 5. The technical word in a precept ordering an arrest. See ARREST, 2; CAPERE. 6. The technical word charging felonious appropriation in embezzlement; in larceny the words are "take and carry away." "Take" and "steal" are not necessarily synonymous. The taking is actual when the seizing and carrying away is without pretense of an existing contract; and constructive, when, under such pretense, possession, with intent to convert, is obtained. See CARRY, 1; ЕмBEZZLEMENT; LARCENY; ROBBERY. 7. A mere attempt to seduce is not a taking within a statute against abduction: there must be some positive act to get the person away.6 But a taking for purposes of prostitution need not be by force; it may be by improper solicitations or inducements." 8. To appropriate to a public use, against the will of the owner: as, to take private property. 1 Jackson v. Brown, 5 Wend. 594 (1830). 2 Bank of United States v. Owens, 2 Pet. *538 (1829). Grim's Appeal, 89 Pa. 334 (1879). • Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central R. Co., 128 U. S. 261 (1888); R. S. § 1008. • Stone v. Stevens, 12 Conn. *229 (1837). • People v. Parshall, 6 Park. Cr. 132 (1864). People v. Marshall, 59 Cal. 388 (1881). . propThe constitutions of all of the States provide, in substance, as follows: “Nor shall be deprived of any person erty, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."1 In this connection "taken" means, broadly, - occupied, used, diminished in value, injured, damaged, destroyed. The courts of some States hold, or have held, that the inhibition extends only to cases of actual appropriation - direct, physical seizure or dispossession; the courts of other States, that cases of indirect, conse quential injury are also included. The later constitutions generally include the latter class of cases under such phrases as "property taken or damaged," damaged meaning injuriously affected.2 When a public use causes to property, no part of which is taken, an injury of such a character that, if it accrued when a portion of the property was taken, it would form an element of the damages as to the part not taken, there is such damage as entitles the owner to compensation.s Applied to the condemnation of land for railway use, "taken" means the exclusion of the owner from use and possession and the actual assumption of exclusive possession by the corporation at the termination and as the result of judicial proceedings.4 Where the tracks of a street railway, which owned an exclusive franchise for that mode of carriage, were paralleled by the tracks of a cable tram-way, the latter having obtained from owners of the soil the right to occupy the streets, the property of the former was held to be "damaged," and not "taken," within the meaning of the constitution of Nebraska.5 Under the Constitution of Illinois of 1870, in which the words used are "taken or damaged," a recovery may be had wherever private property has sustained a substantial injury from the making and use of any public improvement, whether the dainage be direct, as when caused by trespass or physical invasion, or consequential, as in diminution of market value.. U. S. Constitution, Amd. V. See 1 Bl. Com. 139. 2 Rigney v. Chicago, 102 Ill. 71, 75 (1882), cases; Mollandin v. Union Pacific R. Co., 14 F. R. 394 (1882); Gottscholk v. Chicago, &c. R. Co., 14 Neb. 559 (1883); Hollingsworth v. Parish of Tensas, 4 Woods, 280 (1883); Rochette v. Chicago, &c. R. Co., 32 Minn. 208-4 (1884), cases; Pittsburgh Junction R. Co. v. McCutcheon, 18 W. N. C. (Pa., 1886); Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 166 (1853); Re Dorrance Street, 4 R. I. 245 (1856). Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable Tram-Way Co., 32 F. R. 733 (1887); McElroy v. Kansas City, 21 id. 257 (1884). • Woodruff v. Catlin, 54 Conn. 297 (1886), Pardee, J. Omaha Horse Ry. Co. v. Cable Tram-Way Co., 32 F. R. 727 (1887). • Chicago v. Taylor, 125 U. S. 161, 168 (1888), Harlan, J.,