McKIM v. ODOM.— 3 BLAND. 419

does not by its mandamus deprive them of any of their discre-
tionary power, but merely commands them to execute their duty,
to render judgment, or to make answer as they may think proper,
to the end that the individual may have an appeal, or prosecute
his suit to a final decision, or obtain the relief he seeks. Bac.
Abr. tit. Mandamus. D. Why should not an immediate power, to
this extent, in the shape of an attachment against the person, be
vested in every Court of justice, before which a public officer, or
a body politic, may be called as a defendant! The important con-
cerns of the public, or the rights of individuals, or of corporations,
most certainly ought not to be suffered to be delayed, obstructed,
or destroyed by the mere indolence, caprice, or perverseness of
any one.

These difficulties and inconveniences are sufiicient to shew, that
a body politic ought not, in any case, to be made a defendant,
unless it is indispensably necessary to do so. But there are in-
stances, many of which have already occurred in this Court, and
of which this suit affords an example, where, as the law now
stands, * a corporation must be made a party, to the suit, 424
although it has, in truth, not the least concern with the
matter in dispute. Thus where the plaintiff claims a right to a
sum of money deposited in a bank, or to certain shares of stock
which stand on the books of the company in the name of the de-
fendant who claims the deposit or the shares as his own, or as
having an interest in it, or them, the body politic, it is held, must
be made a party to prevent the deposit or the shares from being
paid away, or transferred, before the right can be determined.
This, with the vast concerns of the bank, the East India, and the
South Sea Companies of England, had become an evil of such
magnitude, that the Parliament of that country interposed, and
declared by law, that in all such cases it should not be necessary
to make them parties. 2 M«d. Pri. Chaw. 191. But why should
not a similar exemption be extended to all our joint stock com-
panies; and a mere notice of the pending litigation be declared
equivalent to making them parties for every purpose of prevent-
ing the parting with a deposit, or the transferring of the shares
of its stock until the right to it was fully decided.

All these embarrassments and delays might be removed or pre-
vented by a few very obvious and easy alterations in the course of
procedure in suits where the State is required to be represented
by its Attorney-General, and against corporations. Let it be de-
clared, that on proof of the service of a copy of the bill upon the
Attorney-General in any case where the State should appear as a
defendant, he may be compelled to answer, but not on oath, by
process of attachment as against other persons. That on a sub-
poena being returned served, the plaintiffs may obtain an attach-
ment against corporators so summoned, or that the plaintiff may