BINNEY'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 129

could be conveniently made in that way to answer both purposes,
this section allowed it to be done; if not, no condemnation was to
be suffered at any time for any such purpose.

But supposing the right to condemn granted to this corporation,
it must have been intended to provide for the erection of mills io
connexion with the canal. Then it is evident, that both purposes
must be comprehended in the original formation of those canals;
and the acquisitions of the company for that purpose. The law no
where, by any express words, or by any fair construction, author-
izes the company to make any new and additional acquisitions
along the line of navigation formed by them, even for the purpose
of that navigation; much less for mills, or any other, or additional
purpose. But the erection of mills, to which the canal is made
tributary, as a head race, necessarily requires the "making large
canals, capable of carrying such quantities of water as may be
sufficient for both purposes;" and, consequently, if they have not
originally that capacity, they must be enlarged before mills can be
supplied from them.

This canal, it is admitted on all hands, has no more than the
specified dimensions of the required navigable canal; and there-
fore, if the plaintiff's claim is to be gratified to any extent what-
ever, the canal must be enlarged, and its capacity for carrying an
adequate additional quantity of water provided for in some way.
This, I apprehend, can only be effected by additions, in one of
three modes: by adding to its width, to its depth, or to its height.
We have only to cast an eye over the plots filed in this case, to
see, that if it is to be widened, the corporation must, for that pur-
pose, acquire an additional breadth of land on one or on each side.
* If it is to be raised, then on reverting to the diagram, it 137
will be seen that, supposing the canal A B to be the head
race, it can only be effected by a dam A 2, or an elongation of the
canal to 1, and in either case, the absolute right in the land itself,
or the right to flood the land A 2 1, must be acquired by the cor-
poration. Again, if it is to be deepened, then the excavation at
A must be such as to draw off the water from the land A 2 1, to its
prejudice; and consequently, a right to do so, or a clear title to
the land must be acquired by the company. Every possible way
then of enlarging the canal, after it has been once formed, neces-
sarily implies a new acquisition of property by the company. But
the Act of their incorporation has given them no power whatever
to purchase and hold, much less any authority to take from others,
and have condemned to their use any property or franchise what-
ever, to be applied to any such purpose. Blakemore v. The Glam-
organshire Canal Navigation, 6 Cond. Chart. Rep. 550.

That, this is the correct construction of this law is strongly sus-
tained by the express provisions of an Act passed at the then next
preceding session of the General Assembly, upon a subject, in all
9 2 B.