BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 107

tors of which body politic have commenced and are now engaged
in the work of extending the canal, for the making of which their
Act of incorporation was passed, from a point on tide-water, called
the old locks, two miles above Georgetown, and easy of access to
any sea vessel which can reach Georgetown, to the City of Wash-
ington without any legal authority whatever; and to avail them-
selves of a power they claim of disposing of waste water from the
canal, have purchased lands on its illegally extended line below
the lands of the plaintiff with an intention to erect water works;
or solely with a view to subserve local interests, and to speculate
in lands, mill-sites and water privileges; which illegal extension of
the canal, and purchase of land are designed to work a fraud upon
the interests of the plaintiff; first, by materially and irreparably
injuring, or destroying the natural advantages peculiarity incident
and belonging exclusively to his land, and constituting its chief
value; secondly, by materially and irreparably injuring or destroy-
ing the rights secured to him by the Act of 1784, eh. 33, s. 13;
thirdly, by irretrievably depreciating the value of his mill-sites by
the formation of others, adjoining to them, along the line of the
illegally extended canal; and lastly, by expending the funds of
the body politic, including a portion of that which belongs to this
plaintiff, as a stockholder, in a way not authorized by their Act of
incorporation.

*It is further stated, that the plaintiff' is debarred from
the use of his property, and threatened with still greater 112
injury by the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, who are erect-
ing an immense dam, abutted on his land, in Montgomery County,
and extending entirely across the river, and of sufficient dimen-
sions to obstruct the whole of its waters from their accustomed
channel, and to divert them entirely away from his lands; and thus
totally destroy the advantages, for mill-sites, which they naturally
possess; and also to deprive him of his rights under the Act of
1784, ch. 33, s. 13. All which has been done, or is about to be
done by the defendants, without the consent of the plaintiff; with-
out his having been compensated for his property: and without its
having been valued and condemned in any manner according to
law.

In the answers and their exhibits, it is alleged, that the body
politic, created by the Act of 1784, ch. 33, had, by virtue of their
powers, acquired a right to land in Montgomery County, at the
place in question; and had erected thereon a dam across the river,
which is to give place to the one now complained of; that the pro-
posed dam is neither to be abutted, nor erected on any part of the
plaintiff''s land; that the old canal, from the old dam downwards,
was twenty-five feet wide, and two feet deep; and, these defend-
ants, having resolved to use it, without any enlargement, as a
feeder to the new canal, deemed it necessary, in order to furnish a