BINNEY'S CASE. 1J»

supposes some tacit, or implied admission of him against whom it
is brought to bear, that the title claimed is well founded. The
principles of common law presumptions arising from lapse of time,
and those statutory limitations which have been introduced to quiet
the rights of individuals, are among the most balmy principles of
the law, and should always be highly respected, (a) Before a pre-
sumption of right can, however, be founded upon the continuance
of certain circumstances during any length of time, it must be
shewn, that such circumstances necessarily involve an admission
of the right of him by whom it is claimed. There must appear to
be such an obvious connexion between the circumstances, and the
right, that so soon as the circumstances are established an irresisti-
ble inference immediately arises that the right as claimed must also
exist. (6)

But the fact of there being rents in a canal affords a just founda-
tion for presuming, that it has been badly constructed; or that it
is exposed to such floodings as to diminish its utility and make it
very expensive to its owners. It by no means follows as a fair
consequence from such facts, or from their long continuance, that
the owners of the canal had made such sluices, or suffered them to
continue with an implied or tacit understanding, that they might
be considered as constant streams applicable to mills. There is
no obvious or natural connexion between such circumstances and
the existence of such a right in any form; nor has such a right
been found by experience to be usually consequent upon, or coinci-
dent with any such known facts. The continuance of such cir-
cumstances does not, in any manner, involve an admission of any
such right; nor do they stand in the slightest degree related as
cause and effect. If the canal had been protected, as it ought to
have been, by a guard lock at its inlet, its supply of water would
have been regular; it might have been made perfectly close every
where, and there would have been no waste or apparently surplus
water gushing from its sides. These presumptions urged by the
plaintiff are, therefore, wholly unfounded. From all which it is
perfectly clear, that this act incorporating The Potomac Company,
has neither given nor reserved to this plaintiff, or to any proprietor
of land, any shadow of right, independently of any express agree-

(a) Dudley v. Dudley, Prece. Chan. 249; Charlwood v. Morgan, 1 New Rep. 66;
The Rebecca, 5 Rob. Ad. Rep. 104; Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 272.—-(6.) 1 Ev.
Pothier Ob. 472; 2 Ev. Pothier Ob. 119; 4 Stark. Evi. 1234.