|
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
RIYER.-EMINENT
DOMAIN.-CANAL COMPANY.-STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
When attachment is in the nature of mesne process, the sheriff may take
bail for
the party's appearance ; and on a return c=epi, 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 injunction, 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, may be 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-defendant.
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
capacities
must be considered as if they were different persons. (b)
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 qualified manner, by
law.
(a) Cited in geerl v. Keerl, 28 Md. 161.
(b) Approved in Tartar v. Gibbs, 24 Md. 33?; Ducker v. Belt, 3 Md. Ch. 22.
(c) See
Benney v. Canal Co. 8 Peters, 201.
|
