106 BINNEY'S CASE..

active existence a corporation by the name of The Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company', with power to sue and be sued by that
name.(&) But, from the peculiar nature of such an artificial body,
it can be made a party to a suit in no other manner, than by its
designated legal appellation; because it can, in no other way, be
noticed by a court of justice, or known to the law. Its name
is the very being of its constitution; the knot of its combination,
without which it can perform none of its corporate functions.(l)
No body, whether natural or artificial, can be treated as a party
defendant against whom no process is prayed. Merely naming a
person in a bill does not make him a party, unless
process is prayed against him, (m) nor can an injunction be granted
against any one unless it be expressly asked for by the bill. (n)

This bill alleges, and repeatedly charges, that The Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company, have withheld, and are about to injure
the rights of the plaintiff. The nature of the wrong, and the
means by which it is to be effected, are described; and all the
injustice which has been, or may be so produced, is clearly and
expressly imputed to The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company,
as the chief actor, and moving cause of all. Every one else com-
plained of is distinctly described as an officer or agent of that cor-
poration. The bill, however, prays, that an injunction may be
directed, not to that corporation, but 'to the President and Directors

of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company and Isaac McCord
aforesaid, their engineers, agents, and servants, and all others
engaged by said President and Directors.' And without asking
for any process, calling on the corporation, named The Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal Company, to answer, as a defendant; the bill,
after naming the persons who were then President and Directors,
only prays for a subpoena 'to the said President and Directors and
Isaac McCord, commanding them to appear and answer.'

Hence it appears, that the body politic itself has not been

(k) 1824, ch, 79.—(1) 1 Blac. Com. 475.—(m) Fawkes v. Pratt, 1 P. Will. 593;
Windsor v. Windsor, 2 Dick. 707.— (n) Savory v. Dyer, Amb. 70; Davile v. Peacock,
Barnar. 27; Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 262.

BRANNOCK v. MOLL. 1720.—For the want of a prayer in the bill for an injunc-
tion; and sufficient bond not being given, the injunction is dissolved. Rule answer
by next term. Afterwards the complainant by his attorney prays the bill in this
cause may be withdrawn, and that the suit may surcease on the said bill, which is
accordingly granted with costs to the defendant. On payment of costs, or good
security given therefor, the new injunction brought is to be proceeded on.—Chan-
cery Proceedings, lib. P. L. fol. 499.