120 BINNEY'S CASE.

nation. Therefore, even if the plaintiff has his natural mill-site
taken from him by these defendants for their canal, he has a legal
and proper remedy, and cannot be relieved in this way. Besides,
it is declared by that act of Assembly, 'that the pendency of any
proceedings in any suit, in the nature of a writ of ad quod dam-
num, or any other proceedings, shall not hinder, or delay the pro-
gress of the work.' (e) And, consequently, this court would not
interpose, in any way, further than to compel these defendants to
institute and prosecute with reasonable diligence proceedings, in
the nature of a writ of ad quod damnum, under this law, so as to
enable the plaintiff to obtain the redress specially provided for
him; unless there were some fraudulent circumstances; or some
deviation from the line prescribed, or going beyond the authority
given. (f)

From all these considerations and views of the subject, it is
certain, that it has not been distinctly shewn, that the plaintiff is
the owner of any natural mill-site; between the point where the
defendants are erecting their darn, and the tide water of the river—
and even if he is the owner of any such mill-site, the acts imputed
to the defendants, being either denied as untrue to the extent set
forth; or being in themselves legal, are not of such a nature as to
form the foundation of any complaint against them by this plaintiff,
as the owner of such natural mill-site.

The next stand taken by this plaintiff is upon the privileges,
which, he alleges, have been secured to him by the act of assembly
incorporating The Potomac Company, upon whose estate these
alleged privileges were charged; (g) which company were, for
certain considerations, authorised to convey to The Chesapeake and
Ohio Canal Company', all the property, rights and privileges by them
owned, possessed, and enjoyed; and the new company were ena-
bled to accept such transfer, and to hold, possess, use and occupy
all the property, rights and privileges in the same manner, and to
the same effect as The Potomac Company had held, and occupied
the same by law. (h) And, upon this conveyance being made,
The Potomac Company was to be vacated, annulled, and dissolved.
This last solemn testamentary act of The Potomac Company, it is
admitted, has been properly made, and that body politic has expired

(t) 1824, ch. 79, s. 19.—(f) Vernon v. Blackerby, 2 Atk. 145; Ex parte Vennor,
3 Atk, 770; Rex v. Inhabitants of Flecknow, 1 Burr, 465; Hughes v. Trustees of
Modern College, 1 Ves. 188; Agar v. The Regents Canal Company, Coop, Rep. 78.
(g) 1784, ch, 33, s. 13.—(h) 1824, ch, 79, s. 13.