102 BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND.

claim to relief, so far as it could have been shown, or, to a certain
extent, might have been admitted. But upon this occasion, the
defendants have specially relied on this as one of their objections.

By an Act of Assembly authority was given to create, or call into
* active existence a corporation by the name of The Chesa-
106 peake andOhio Canal Company, with power to sue and be
sued by that name. 1824, ch. 79. But, from the peculiar nature
of such an artificial body, it can be made a party to a suit in no
other manner, than by its designated legal appellation; because it
can, in no other way, be noticed by a Court of justice, or made
known to the law. Its name is the very being of its constitution;
the knot of its combination, without which it can perform none of
its corporate functions. 1 Blac. Com. 475. Nobody, whether
natural or artificial, can be treated as a party defendant against
whom no process is prayed. Merely naming a person in a bill as a
defendant does not make him a party, unless process is prayed
against him, Fawkes v. Pratt, 1 P. Will. 593; Windsor v. Windsor,
2 Dick. 707; nor can an injunction be granted against any one un-
less it be expressly asked for by the bill. Savory v. Dyer, Amb.
70; Davile v. Peacock, Bnrnar. 27; Jesus College v. Bloom, 3
Atk. 262. (g)

This bill alleges, and repeatedly charges, that The Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company, have withheld, and are about to injure
the rights of the plaintiff. The nature of the wrong, and the
means by which it is to be effected, are described; and all the
injustice which has been, or may be so produced, is clearly and
expressly imputed to The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,
as the chief actor, and moving cause of all. Every one else com-
plained of is distinctly described as an officer or agent of that cor-
poration. The bill, however, prays, that an injunction may be
directed, not to that corporation, but " to the President and Direc-
tors of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company and Isaac McCord
aforesaid, their engineers, agents, and servants, and all others
engaged by said President and Directors." And without asking
for any process, calling on the corporation, named The Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company, to answer, as a defendant; the bill,
after naming the persons who were then President and Directors,
only prays for a subposna " to the said President and Directors and
Isaac McCord, commanding them to appear and answer."

(g) BEANNOCK v. MOLL.—1720.—For the want of a prayer in the bill for an
injunction; and sufficient bond not being given, the injunction is dissolved.
Rule answer by next term. Afterwards the complainant by his attorney
prays the bill in this cause may be withdrawn, and that the suit may sur-
cease on the said bill, which is accordingly granted with costs to the defend-
ant. On payment of costs, or good security given therefor, the new injunc-
tion brought re to be proceeded on.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L. fol 499.