BINNEY'S CASE. 111

head of the little falls, and extending down along the river; which

property is naturally possessed of great and peculiar advantages, in
the application of water to mills; for which purpose me plaintiff,
and all others, owning lands so situated, have a right to use the
waters of the river; that the plaintiff is entitled to certain rights and
privileges, under the act of 1784, ch. 33, s. 13, which The Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company deny, oppose, and prevent him from
being let into the enjoyment of; although they have succeeded to the
rights, and have subjected themselves to the claims and franchises
which were demandable from the body politic incorporated by that
law; although the canal, made under the authority of the act of
1784, has had admitted into it a sufficiency of water both for navi-
gation and water works, as is evident, from the quantity of waste
water now thrown off, in various sluices upon the land of the plain-
tiff; and although this plaintiff is able and willing, and has offered
to agree to contribute to enlarge the canal for the purpose of letting
into it an additional supply of water, if it should become necessary.
It is further stated, that the plaintiff is a stockholder in The
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company, the President and Directors
of which body politic have commenced and are now engaged in
the work of extending the canal, for the making of which their act
of incorporation was passed, from a point on tide water, called the
old locks, two miles above Georgetown, and easy of access to any
sea vessel which can reach Georgetown, to the city of Washington
without any legal authority whatever; and to avail themselves of a
power they claim of disposing of waste water from the canal, have
purchased lands on its illegally extended line below the lands of
the plaintiff with an intention to erect water works; or solely with
a view to subserve local interests, and to speculate in lands, mill-
sites, and water privileges; which illegal extention of the canal,
and purchase of land are designed to work a fraud upon the inte-
rests of the plaintiff; first, by materially and irreparably injuring, or
destroying the natural advantages peculiarly incident, and belong-
ing exclusively to his land, and constituting its chief value;
secondly, by materially and irreparably injuring or destroying the
rights secured to him by the act of 1784, ch. 33, s. 13; thirdly, by
irretrievably depreciating the value of his mill-sites by the forma-
tion of others, adjoining to them, along the line of the illegally ex-
tended canal; and lastly, by expending the funds of the body politic,
including a portion of that which belongs to this plaintiff, as a
stockholder, in a way not authorised by their act of incorporation.