BINNEY'S CASE. 103

8th August, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—It appears, and is now

admitted, that the body politic, called 'The Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal Company ,' has not been made a party to this suit; and
therefore, it will be proper, at once, to declare, that on that ground
alone, this injunction must be dissolved, and the attachment
quashed. But as the solicitors of the parties have come prepared
to discuss this motion upon its merits, it may be better for all con-
cerned, that the argument should proceed as if there were no errors
in the pleadings; or as if the facts, now disclosed, were presented
in such a form as the parties were willing "to abide by; only so far
noticing the present defects in the to enable the court
to say to what extent they require amendment. Because if the
plaintiff stops here with a mere order that the injunction be dis-
solved; and immediately asks for an amendment of his bill, the
Chancellor will expect a full and frank discloure of all the facts of
the case, as now developed by these erroneous proceedings, and
will use his discretion in granting or withholding a new injunction
accordingly.

The solicitors of the parties entirely approved of these sugges-
tions, and the argument of the case proceeded accordingly.

22d September, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The motion for
the dissolution of the injunction heretofore granted, standing ready
for hearing, and the solicitors of the parties having been fully
heard, the proceedings were read and considered.

A writ of injunction is one of the strong arms of the Court of
Chancery, which is seldom put forth, in any case of magnitude,
without being most sensibly felt. This great conservative power,
in some form or other, seems to be an essential part of our code.
If there were no means of instantly arresting any one, who should
be seen moving with a most wicked speed to the perpetration of
an irreparable depredation upon the property of another, our laws
would be materially defective. And yet, on the other hand, if,
upon any light pretext, the movements of a citizen might be sud-
denly checked, or any large and costly concern might be at once
brought to a stand, and its operations restrained, for any length
of time, positive ruin might be produced by the very means in-
tended for preservation and protection. Therefore, on a bill for
an injunction, or a ne exeat, though the court will act with a
promptness almost amounting to surprise, care must be taken, that
the application be made as promptly as possible. If the object