110 BINNEY'S CASE.

should not be made to part with his injunction; if his bill were in
all respects such as to give him a just claim to its continuance.

On the 21st of July last, Isaac McCord filed hit answer, in
which, after stating that he had contracted with this company to
execute certain work; and otherwise very imperfectly answering
the bill; apparently with a view to make up for the insufficiency of
his answer, he says, 'he made a contract with them as stated in his
answer to the petition of the complainant; to which he refers, and
which answer he prays may be taken as a part of this his answer
to the bill of complaint. A reference to the same will render it
unnecessary for this defendant to give a particular answer to the
charge in the bill.'

It is presumed, that this defendant meant by this to refer to and
invoke as a part of his answer to the bill, the answer which he had,
or rather intended to have given to the petition, praying for an at-
tachment against him. But, on referring to the answer which he
actually made to that petition, it appears, that it was not sworn to
until the 28th day of the same month; nor filed until the 3d day of
August following. It is therefore evident, that, although this mode
of making an answer sufficient, by referring to, and adopting an
answer of a co-defendant, or by splicing on to it another answer
belonging to a different subject, may be tolerated to a certain
extent; (u) yet here, the dates of the affidavits and filing of the
papers demonstrate, that it has not, in fact, been done. And, con-
sequently, this answer of McCord, taken without the aid of the
matter invoked, affords to him and his co-defendants not the slight-
est ground for dissolving this injunction.

Having thus reviewed the pleadings, I shall now gather up the
facts, as stated in them, and their respective exhibits; and inquire,
whether they present any equity which merits a more decent garb,
or which ought to be allowed to come again before the court in an
orderly manner. And overlooking the errors of the pleadings, I
shall, in speaking of the parties, consider Amos Binney as the
plaintiff, and The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company as the
defendant.

In the bill, and its exhibits, it is alleged, that Amos Binney is
seized in his own right, and as trustee for others, of certain lands
situated adjoining to the little falls of the Potomac river, partly in
Maryland, and partly in the District of Columbia, beginning at the

(u) Anonymous, 1 P. Will 300; Whitworth v. Davis, 1 Ves. and B, 549; Jones
v. Magill, 1 Bland, 198; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 267,