rating Waste, as by building on the Premises (a), the Court will not enjoin; nor will it, in any case, unless the Reversioner or Remainder-man in fee be made a party; for they, possibly, may approve of the Waste (b). So, an Injunction against Waste is obtainable against a Mortgagor (c), or a Mortgagee in Fee (d), or for Years (e); but if a Mortgagor cut Wood and Underwood at seasonable times, and of proper growth, it will not be considered as Waste (f). An Injunction lies also against a Lessee for Years (g), or under Lessee (h), or Tenant from year to year (i), manifesting an intention of committing Waste; and by a Landlord or Termor at a ground Rent against his Lessee (k); but upon a Lease of Land in Ireland for Lives, renewable for ever, the Courts of Equity there, have declined restraining Waste not specially provided for by the terms of the Lease (7). Where a Purchaser has filed a Bill for a specific performance of his contract, suggesting that the Defendant is proceeding to commit Waste, an Injunction will be granted if the Contract is admitted (m).

(a) 1 Inst. 53.

(b) 3 P. Wms. 268, n. F. (c) 3 Atk. 723, and Usborne v. Usborne, 1 Dick. 75, and the several cases there mentioned. Cooper v. Seymour, 22 Geo. 2. MS.

(d) Farrant against Lee, Ambl. 105; and see Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 210.

(e) 3 Atk. 723.

(f) Hampton v. Hodges, 8 Ves. 105.

(g) 1 Roll's Abr. 380. Bishop of London v. Web, 1 P. Wms. 527; and see Lord Courtown

With respect to Lessees, if they cut down growing Timber (n), or are about to injure Fish Ponds (0), or neglect to keep the bank of a River on which the demised Lands are situated, in repair, an Injunction, it seems, will be granted (p): and where a Lessee covenants not to convert pasture Lands into Arable; or, what is equivalent, to manage pasture in an husbandlike manner, he may be restrained from the violation of such covenant (9); but the Court, except in respect of the Covenant, would not grant an Injunction, unless it were ancient meadow (r).

An Injunction is never granted against a Person having the Inheritance, unless he is only a Trustee, or in such like special Case (s). A Tenant in Tail, therefore, may commit Waste in Houses as well as on all other parts of the Estate, notwithstanding any restraint to the contrary (t). Even where an Infant, Tenant in Tail, not likely to live till of age, by his Guardian, cut down a great quantity of Timber, an Injunction was refused, on behalf of a Remainderman, to restrain him (u).

An Injunction is obtainable, on a Bill filed by the Patron of a Living, to restrain a Rector committing Waste on the Glebe (a), or cutting Timber in the

(n) Redesd. Tr. Pl. 111, 3d. Edit.

(0) 2 Bro. C. C. 64. Lord Bathurst v. Burdon.

(p) Lord Kilmorey v. Thackeray, cit. 2 Bro. C. C. 65.

(q) Drury v. Molins, 6 Ves. 328; and see 3 Anstr. 750.

(r) Lord Grey de Wilton v. Baron, 6 Ves. 106,

(s) Prac. Regr.

(t) Sic dict. in Grenorchy v. Bosville, For. 16.

(u) Mr. Saville's case, mentioned For. 16.

(x) Knight v. Moseley, Amb. 176. recognized by the Lord Chancellor in Wither v. Dean, &c. of Winchester, 3 Meriv. 427. Bradley v. Stratchy, 3 Barn..399. 2 Atk. 217. Hoskins v. Featherstone, 2 Bro. C. C. 552.

Church-yard, except for repairing the Parsonage House, Outhouses, Chancels or Pews (y); it lies also to restrain the Widow of a Rector committing Waste (x). A Rector may cut Timber; and he is also entitled to Botes, for repairing Barns and Outhouses belonging to the Parsonage: but he may not cut down Timber for any common purpose. If, however, it is the custom of the country, he may cut down underwood for any purpose; but if he grubs it up it is Waste. An Injunction may be obtained, at the instance of the Attorney-General, against a Bishop, to restrain the felling of great quantities of Timber (a).

Formerly, in a case of Trespass, unless it grew to a nuisance, an Injunction would have been refused (b); but, in modern cases, an Injunction to stay Waste has been granted in cases of Trespass, (unless where the title is disputed) (c), as where a person having got possession under articles to purchase, cuts Timber (d). So, the Owner of a Mine working Minerals

(y) Strachy v. Francis, 2 Atk 216.

(x) Hoskins against Featherstone, 2 Bro. C. C. 552.

(a) Knight against Moseley, Ambl. 176; and see Jefferson v. Bishop of Durham, 1 Bos. & Pull. 120.

(b) See Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves 307. Mogg v. Mogg, 2 Dick. 670.

(c) Norway v. Rowe, 19 Ves. 147. In Kinder v. Jones, 17 Ves. 110, a doubt was expressed by the Lord Chancellor, but an Injunction was granted afterwards by the Master of the Rolls, the defendants, though served with notice, not appearing.

(d) Crockford v. Alexander, 15 Ves. p. 138. Rawlins v. Burgis, 2 Ves. & Bea. 387; and see also Mitchell v. Dors, 6 Ves. 147. Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 308. Courthope and Mapplesden, 10 Ves. 290. In some of these cases the Chancellor seemed not very clear whether an Injunction should be granted in a case of mere Trespass; see Redesd. Tr. Pl. 111. 3rd Edit. but see Hughes v. Trustees of Morden College, 1 Ves. 189. 8 Ves. 90. and 9 Ves. 291; Twort v. Twort, 16 Ves. 130. S. C. MS. Smith and Collyer, 18 Ves. 90. Earl Cowper v. Baker, 17 Ves. 128, and Thomas v. Oakley, 18 Ves. 184.

in the adjoining Land of another, though a mere trespass, under color of a right, has been restrained (d); but where the Defendant being a mere Stranger, and guilty of a forcible Entry, may be turned out of possession immediately, an Injunction does not lie (e).

If the Lord of a Manor is preparing to open Mines (f), or, (unwarranted by custom) to cut Timber, on the Copyhold Land, an Injunction will be granted (g). The Lord of a Manor, it has been held, is confined to his legal remedy for Waste committed by a Copyholder, and has no Equity for an Injunction (h), but this decision, in a subsequent case, was overruled (i).

An Injunction between Tenants in Common against malicious Destruction, may be obtained, but not against what is called equitable Waste (k), unless the Tenant committing such Waste is insolvent (1); or is occupying Tenant to the Plaintiff (m); but except under such circumstances, an Injunction, it seems, cannot be obtained between Tenants in Common (n).

In the case of Coparceners, the Court has interfered by Injunction to prevent the destruction of

(d) Mitchell v. Dors, 6 Ves.

147.

(e) Mortimer v. Cottrell, 2 Cox 205.

(f) Grey v. Duke of Northumberland, 13 Ves. 236. S. C. 17 Ves. 281. That the Lord cannot dig for Mines, see Gilb. Ten. 327.

(g) Whitechurch v. Holworthy, 19 Ves. 213.

(h) Dench v. Bampton, 4 Ves.

700; and see Redesd. Tr. Pl. 113.

(i) Richards v. Noble, 9 March 1807, MS. S. C. 3 Meriv. 656.

(k) Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589.

(1) Smallman v. Onions and others, 3 Bro. 621.

(m) Twort v. Twort, 16 Ves. 132. S. C. MS.

(n) Goodwyn v. Spray, 2 Dick. 667.

the Property by one Coparcener to the injury of the rest (n).

The Court, as hath been observed, interferes by way of Injunction in case of Waste, with a view to the prevention of the Wrong; and where a Bill is filed for an Injunction to stay Waste, and Waste has been already committed, the Court, to prevent multiplicity of Suits, will not oblige the Party to bring an Action at Law, but will decree an account and satisfaction for what is passed (o): but after the determination of a Tenant's Estate by assignment or otherwise, a Bill will not lie for an account of Timber cut down (p), no Injunction being prayed, or necessary,— no injury to be prevented. If, indeed, a person commits Waste, and continues in Possession, there an Injunction to stay Waste is proper (q), from the probability that he will again commit Waste.

Where there is an arrear of a charge upon a Real Estate an Injunction lies to prevent the cutting of Timber upon it (r).

IV. The Sale of Books, printed Music, or Prints, &c. will be restrained by Injunction, if a proper ground be laid for such proceeding.

If, however, a Publication be of such a nature that the Author can maintain no Action at Law, a Court of Equity will not grant an Injunction, even upon a submission in the Answer: "the Court," for instance,

(n) Redesd. Tr. Pl. 113, 3rd edit.

(0) Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 262, 3. S. C. Ambl. 54.

(p) Ibid. 264; and see Smith v. Cooke, 3 Atk. 381;

and Turner v. Buck, 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 758.

(9) 3 Atk. 381.

(r) Lord Blaney v. Mohun, Vin. Abr. tit. "Waste," (R. a.) case 27. 2 Eq. Cases Abr. 758.