BINNEY'S CASE. 107

made a party to this suit; and that no injunction has been directed
to it; and consequently no restriction has been, or can be imposed
upon its conduct; nor can any order, or decree which has been or
can be passed upon this bill, in any manner control, affect, or
bind it, or its rights, interests, or property. The whole cause of
complaint is against the corporation; and therefore, it is evident,
that the relief, to be at all effectual; whether by an injunction, or
in any other shape, must be imposed upon and directed against
the corporation specially complained of, as the cause of the alleged
wrong. It would be futile to bind up the hands, and give relief
against the servant while the master was left free. And so, in
this instance, it would be of no service to this plaintiff, and insure
to him nothing of the substantial relief he seeks, by enjoining the
present officers and agents of this body politic; since, in doing so,
the court would employ its powers against improper objects; and
therefore ineffectually. For, if the present officers and agents
were restrained, others might be instantly employed, so as imme-
diately to prosecute the alleged mischievous work. And the judi-
cial authority would have gone forth, not to prevent wrong, but to
induce a corporation to change its officers and agents, which would
be idle.

Upon these grounds, and because of this palpable defect in the
bill, the injunction, which issued in pursuance of its prayer, could
not be sustained in any way whatever. Yet this corporation,

called The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, might have
treated this defect in the bill as a mere misnomer of itself; and by
appearing and answering by its proper name, it might have waived
all right to take advantage of the error.(o) But it has not done
so; and its officers by their answer expressly rely and insist upon
this objection to the bill.

The plaintiff might, it is true, have asked and obtained leave to
amend his bill in this particular; and the injunction would not, as
of course, have been dissolved on making any trivial, or unimpor-
tant amendment. But where an amendment is asked for the pur-
pose of introducing new facts, which give a different complexion
to the case, or make any substantial alteration in it; or where the
object of the amendment is, as in this instance, to bring before the
court the principal mover of the alleged wrong, so as to require a

(o) Gilb. Com. Plea. 234; Road Company v. Creeger, 5 H. & J. 124; Bosley v.
The Susquehanna Canal, 21 April, 1829, post.