BOSLEY v. SUSQUEHANNA CANAL.—3 BLAND. 51

Act of Assembly by which these defendants have been incorpo-
rated, it appears that they have been made capable of suing and
being sued only by the name of " The Proprietors of the Susque-
hanna Canal." And it is declared that the said corporation or
a majority of them shall elect out of their own members a gover-
nor and three directors, a treasurer and secretary for the year.
November, 1783, ch. 23, s. 2 and 3. Hence, although it is most
fair to presume, that the plaintiff intended to have made this
body politic a defendant by its proper * name; yet, it is evi-
dent, that strictly speaking he has not done so; because no 65
process has been prayed against it, by that name alone by which
it is made capable of being sued; and because it also appears,
that instead of asking to have the writ of injunction directed to
The Proprietors of the Susquehanna Canal, it is only prayed for
against some of their agents, that is, their governor and direc-
tors, without having the corporation itself sued or called upon to
answer, or restrained in any way whatever. This, however is,
an objection of which this body politic may have no wish to take
advantage; but considering it as an unimportant misnomer they
may come in, waive it, answer by their true name, and take de-
fence upon the merit. I shall therefore pass over this objection for
the present, and leave it to be relied upon or waived by the defend-
ants as they may think proper. Binney's Case, 2 Bland, 106.

From what has been set forth in the bill and its exhibits it ap-
pears, that this body politic, under their Act of incorporation had
acquired a fee simple estate in a certain parcel of land in Cecil
County, lying along the left margin of the River Susquehanna;
over which, by virtue of the same authority, they have formed a
navigable canal. November, 1783, ch. 23, s. 6. As to which it is
expressly declared, "that the said canal, when completed, shall be
kept in good repair by the said corporation for the use of the pub-
lic." November, 1783, ch. 23. s. 4. The defendants, it appears
then, are the owners in fee simple of a parcel of land; which land,
so far as it is dedicated to the use of the public, has been sub-
jected to the servitude of a highway; the tolls, for the privilege
of passing along which, alone belong to the corporation; and con-
sequently, this canal, with its appurtenances and necessary tow-
ing paths, must be considered and treated in like manner as all
other highways. Because all navigable rivers and great loads or
canals, common to all passengers, and which are to be kept in repair
for the use of the public, are in law deemed highways. And the
Acts of Assembly, by authority of which they are laid out, formed,
and kept in repair, are public laws of which the Court is bound to
take notice. Com. Dig. tit. Chimin, (A. 1;) 1 Stark. Evid. 163, 400;
Agnew v. The Bank of Gettysburg, 2 H. & G. 479.

I have met with no instance, in the English books, and but one
case among the records of this Court, in which a defendant has