BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 95

After which, on the application of the administrator, James
Boarman, the whole amount, so brought into the Court was paid to
him; and thus this Court finally delivered itself from all further
concern with the estate of the deceased lunatic.

BINNEY'S CASE.

PLEADING AND PRACTICE IN EQUITY INJUNCTIONS.—AMENDMENT.—POTOMAC
RIVER.—EMINENT DOMAIN.—CANAL COMPANY.—STATUTORY CONSTRUC-
TION.

When attachment is in the nature of mesne process, the sheriff may take
bail for the party's appearance; and on a return cepi, the sheriff may be
ordered to bring in the body, or he may sue upon the bail bond.

It is the better mode, in most cases, to decide on the motion to dissolve the
injunction, before an attachment for the breach of it is disposed of.

The Court frequently refuses an injunction where it acknowledges a right,
when the conduct of the party complaining has led to the state of things,
that occasions the application; but, in most cases, to obtain an injunc-
tion, it is sufficient, that the question is important and doubtful.

In some cases the injunction is granted by a special order, allowing a motion
to dissolve, to be heard at an early day.

The making of a substantial amendment dissolves the injunction of course,
unless expressly saved, (a)

An answer, which purports to be the answer of several; but is not sworn to
by all of them, maybe taken off the file; or considered as the answer
of him only who has sworn to it.

A defendant may sufficiently answer, by adopting the answer of his co-de-
fendant.

No one is a party to the suit against whom no process is prayed.

A misnomer may be waived, but if relied on, it is fatal.

Where the legal capacities of parties, as charged, are different; such capaci-
ties must be considered as if they were different persons. (6)

A corporation can only be called on to answer by its proper name.

All corporations are subject to a visitatorial power; or to some legal control.

In general, a corporation may alien all, or any of its property at pleasure.

A natural mill-site described.

It is not illegal to erect a new mill near to, and in rivalship of an old one.

The power conferred on the Potomac Company in regard to mills considered,
(c)

The nature and application of a presumption of right as to certain mill-sites.

The Potomac River belongs entirely to Maryland—above tide, it was not
originally deemed a navigable river; but has been made so, in a quali-
fied manner, by law.

(a) Cited in Keerl v. Keerl 28 Md. 161.

(b) Approved in Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md. 337; Ducker v. Belt, 3 Md. Ch. 23.

(c) See Binney v. Canal Co. 8 Peters, 201.