
    The President, Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States, against Haskins.
    Whether the aci of congress incorporating the bank of the United States,-be a public or private act, it is not necessary to set it forth in an -action brought ,:by .the president, directors, and.-company-of that bank.
    The plaintiffs declared in this action by the name and style of' the “ president, directors- and company of the bank of the United States.” The defendant pleaded in .abatement, that the plaintiffs had exhibited their bill, &c., and had -not set forth any act incorporating the hank, of shown the name of the president, directors and company, &c.
    The plaintiffs demurred to this plea, and the defendant joined in demurrer.
    
      Burr, in support of the demurrer insisted,
    that the act in- • corporating the company was a private act, and ought to have been set forth, together with the names of the individuals composing the company. " , ’ .
    
      Hoffman, contra,
    
    contended that the act was a public act, if not so in -terms, at least from its nature, and had [*133] *been frequently recognized by subsequent acts of congress, which were public, and was, therefore, to be regarded as such.
   Per Curiam.

Oh examining precedents, wé are satisfied, that whether the act of congress incorporating the bank of the United States be viewed either as a public or private act, it 'was not necessary to set fdith the act itself, nor the names of the individuals composing the company.

. Judgment for the plaintiffs. 
      
      
        Grays v. Turnpike Co., 4 Randolph, 57; 2 Cowen, 770; 14. Johns. R. 245; 5 Wend. 482. But see, 3 Conn. R. 199 ; 2 Virginia Cas. 297; 5 Randolph, 326. And see Angell & Ames on Corps, ch. 17, § 3.
     