BINNEY'S CASE. 113

which the defendants are now erecting, and passed through the
feeder into their new canal.

And it is alleged, that the old locks, inten-
sion of the canal complained of is to be made, are below the dam;
and within the District of Columbia; and consequently, that the
whole of the extension of the canal, charged to be illegal, is beyond
the jurisdiction of this court; that the proper termination of the
canal is a matter which, by the act of incorporation, belongs exclu-
sively to these defendants alone; and has been accordingly deter-
mined upon by the company at a full meeting of the stockholders,
convened for that and other purposes; and moreover, that, after it
had thus been determined upon, the matter was brought before the
Circuit Court for the "District of Columbia, and the judgment of
that court pronounced thereon; which judgments of the body
politic and of the Circuit Court are final and conclusive upon the
matter, as against this and all other tribunals.

Bills of injunction are always submitted to the chancellor ex parte,
and most commonly asking relief under some pressing emergency,
which admits of little or no delay. It is not always practicable,
thus, to obtain a clear view of the case from the bill alone; the
haste, negligence, or unskilfulness with which it has been framed
often leaves a mist hanging over a part of the case where light is
most wanted; nor is it easy, in every instance, at once, to look
through the mazes of a complicated case, so as either to appreciate
the merits of the plaintiff's pretensions at their full worth, or to
detect their infirmities, and want of equitable support. Under
such circumstances, if there appears to be strong and plausible
reason to believe, that the plaintiff has a just claim to relief, I have
always deemed it best to grant the injunction, because for the
purpose of obtaining an injunction, it is sufficient that the case be
important and doubtful; (w) and at the same time to give the
defendants, as in this instance, an opportunity of having its pro-
priety reconsidered as soon as possible, (x)

Passing by the informalities of the pleadings, there appear to be
three distinct subjects presented to the court for investigation.
First, the plaintiff's claim to certain natural mill-sites which, it is
alleged, are in danger of being irreparably injured or destroyed.
Secondly, the plaintiff's claim to certain artificial mill-sites, derived
from the defendants' canal, which also, as it is alleged, are in like
imminent danger—and, Thirdly, the illegal and unauthorised expen-

(w) Mestaer v. Gillespie, 11 Ves 636 — (x) Drew v. Harman, 2 Exch. Rep. 256.