BINNEY'S CASE. 1£1

and is now no more, (i) It is also admitted, that The Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company, as the devisee or purchaser of all
the estate of The Potomac Company^ can only take and hold sub-
ject to all the incumbrances of which the title deeds of that com-
pany, that is, the acts of Assembly by which they were incorpora-
ted gave them notice, by their being specified therein. (j) And,
consequently, if this plaintiff can establish his claim against the
estate of the defunct, it must be allowed and sustained as equally
available against these defendants, who have taken subject thereto.

Supposing that act of incorporation, (k) without having guaran-
teed any thing like a monopoly in favor of the plaintiff as against
any one, to have secured to him the water rights to the full extent
of his pretensions; then they amount to no more than to a right
to so many mill-sites as can be laid out upon his land, so far as it
lies along the river, and is conterminous with the canal, construc-
ted under the authority of that act, ana nothing more—conceding,
for the present, the correctness of this claim, the next inquiry is,
whether the acts imputed to the defendants can do any such injury
as is complained of.

The plaintiff claims to have the canal considered as the head
race to his mill-sites. The projected dam, which the defendants
are constructing, it is perfectly manifest, even if it should divert
every drop of water from the original bed of the river into it, can-
not, in that way, do his property any harm; because all the water
which he claimed the right to use, would be thus poured into the
head race of his mill-site. Nor can the raising of this dam four
feet higher be of any injury to it; on the contrary, it must be bene-
ficial; because, instead of giving him the command, as he now
has, of a head of only two feet of water, he will have six feet in
his head race—and so far as the defendants may have a right to
conduct the water, by means of their canal, to mill-sites outside of,
and below that owned by the plaintiff, it will be seen, that every
principle of law, shewn to be applicable to a natural mill-site, bears
with equal force upon those of the description claimed by the
plaintiff—and, therefore, unless he can shew, that the defendants,
as owners of outer mill-sites, have so diverted the water as to leave
not the usual quantity for his use, he has no cause of complaint.
But, that is not alleged or pretended. Therefore, upon these

(i) Curson v. African Company, 1 Vern. 121; 1785, ch. 39; 1801, ch. 104,—
(j) 1784, ch, 33, fee,—(k) 1784, ch. 33.