106 BINNEY'S CASE—2 BLAND.

had, or rather intended to have given to the petition praying for
an attachment against him. But, on referring to the answer which
he actually made to that petition, it appears that it was not sworn
to until the 28th day of the same month; nor filed until the 3d day
of August following. It is therefore evident, that although this
mode of making au answer sufficient by referring to and adopting
an answer of a co-defendant, or by splicing on to it another answer
belonging to a different subject, may be tolerated to a certain ex-
tent , Anonymous, 1 P. Will. 300; Whitworth v. Davis, 1 Ves. & B.
549; Jones v. Magill, 1 Bland, 198; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland,
267; yet here, the dates of the affidavits and filing of the papers
demonstrate that it has not in fact been done. And consequently,
this answer of McCord, taken without the aid of the matter in-
voked, affords to him and his co-defendants not the slightest
ground for dissolving this injunction.

Having thus reviewed the pleadings, I shall now gather up the
facts, as stated in them, and their respective exhibits, and inquire
whether they present any equity which merits a more decent garb,
or which ought to be allowed to come again before the Court in au
orderly manner. And overlooking the errors of the pleadings, I
shall, in speaking of the parties, consider Amos Binney as the
plaintiff, and The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company as the de-
fendant.

In the bill and its exhibits, it is alleged that Amos Binney is
seized in his own right, and as trustee for others, of certain lands
situated adjoining to the Little Falls of the Potomac River, partly
in Maryland and partly in the District of Columbia, beginning at
the * head of the Little Falls, and extending down along the
111 river which property is naturally possessed of great and
peculiar advantages, in the application of water to mills; for which
purpose the plaintiff, aud all others owning lands so situated, have
a right to use the waters of the river; that the plaintiff is entitled
to certain rights aud privileges, under the Act of 1784, ch. 33, s.
13, which The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company deny, oppose,
and prevent him from being let into the enjoyment of; although
they have succeeded to the rights, and have subjected themselves
to the claims and franchises which were demandable from the body
politic incorporated by that law; although the canal, made under
the authority of the Act of 1784, has had admitted into it a suffi-
ciency of water both for navigation aud water works, as is evident
from the quantity of waste water now thrown off in various sluices
upou the land of the plaintiff; and although this plaintiff is able
and willing, and has offered to agree to contribute to enlarge the
canal for the purpose of letting into it an additional supply of
water, if it should become necessary.

It is further stated, that the plaintiff' is a stockholder iu The
Chesapeake and Ohio Caual Company, the President and Direc-