77. O'Brien v. O'Br'en, 1 Amb. 107; Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357, 48 Am. Rep. 572; Robertson v. Meados, 73 Ind. 43; Parker v. Raymond, 14 Mo. 535; Disher v. Disher, 45 Neb. 100, 63 N. W. 368; Fortescue v. Fowler, 55 N. J. Eq. 741, 38 Atl. 445; Douglass v. Wiggins, 1 Johns. Oh. (N. Y.) 485; Davenport" v. Magoon, 13 Ore. 3. 57 Am. Rep. 1, 4 Pac-299; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 562, 38 L. R. A. 694, 64 Am. St. Rep. 891, 27 S. E. 411.

In Pennsylvania and Rhode Island the common-law writ of estrepment to prevent waste (see 3 Blackst. Comm. 225) is still in vogue, it seems.

78. People v. Alberty, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 160; Markham v. Howell, 33 Ga 508; Smith v. City of Rome, 19 Ga. 89, 63 Am. Dee. ?98. These were however cases of "waste," so called, by a stranger.

79. Thompson v. Williams, 54 N. C. (1 Jones Eq.) 176; Atkins v. Chilson, 48 Mass. (7 Mete.) 398, 41 Am. Dec. 448; Chamberlain v. Child's Unique Dairy Co., 54 Misc. (N. Y.) 56, 105 N. Y. Supp. 370. But that irreparable injury need not be shown, see Brigham v. Overstreet, 128 Ga. 447, 10 L. R. A, (N. S.) 452, 57 S. E. 484; George's Creek Coal Co. v. Detmold, 1 Md. Oh. 371; Thurston v. Minke, 32 Md. 487.

80. Cutting v. Carter, 4 Hen. &

Sec. 290] Rights of Enjoyment.

Injunction has been granted to restrain the plough-ing tip of meadow land;81 the sowing of a pernicious crop,82 the destruction of timber83 and fruit trees,84 and the improper removal of soil of mineral deposits.85 The removal of a building,86 and the alteration or re moral of parts thereof,87 has also been so rest rained. An injunction to prevent the removal of timber al ready cut has been refused, the parties being relegated to their legal rights after the waste has been actually committed by the cutting of the timber.88

An injunction will not ordinarily be granted unless the applicant therefor shows that the tenant in post session has attempted to commit waste, or has taken active measures looking towards its commission, or has at least threatened to commit it.89 And the courts have generally refused to grant an injunction as against "meliorating" or trivial waste.90

M. (Va.) 424; Atkins v. Chilson. 48 Mass. (7 Metc.) 398. 41 Am. Dec. 448; Brown v. Niles, 165 Mass. 276, 43 N E. 90.

81. Chapel v. Hull. 60 Mich. 167, 26 N. W. 874; Drury v. Molina, 6 Ves. Jr. 328.

82. Pratt v. Brett. 2 Madd. 62

83. Kidd v. Dennison. 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Herring v. Dean of St. Paul's, 2 Wils. Ch. 1; Jones v. Gammon, 123 Ga. 47. 50 S. E. 982.

84. Silva v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591. 4 Pac. 628.

85. Whitfield v. Be wit, 2 P. Wms. 240; Ohio Oil Co. v. Daugh-etee. 240 111. 361, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1108, 88 N. E. 818; University v. Tucker. 31 W. Va. 621, 8 S. E. 410; Williamson v. Jones. 39 W. Va. 231, 25 L. R. A. 222, 19 S. E. 436.

86. Smyth v. Carter, 18 Beav. 78; Jungerman v. Bovee, 19 Cal.

354; Davenport v. Magoon, 13 Ore. 3, 4 Pac. 299, 57 Am. Rep. 1.

87. Baugher v. Crane, 27 Md. 36, 92 Am. Dec. 618; Hayman v. Rownd, 82 Neb 598, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 623, 118 N. W. 328; Doug-lass v. Wiggins. 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 435; Fox v. Lynch, 71 N. J. Eq. 537, 64 Atl. 439; Hamburger & Dreyling v. Settegast. 62 Tex. Civ. App. 446. 131 S. W. 639; Poertner v. Russell, 33 Wis. 193; Brock v. Dole, 66 Wis. 142. 28 N. W. 334; Denechaud v. Trisconl, 26 La. Ann. 402.

88. Watson v. Hunter, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 169.

89. Bewes. Waste. 340; Jack-soi. v. Cator, 5 Ves. Jr. 688; Hext v. Gill, 7 Ch. App. 699; St. Clair v. Sedwick. 39 Neb. 562, 58 N. W. 185; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180.

90. Doherty v. Alln an, 3 App remainder in fee or in tail immediately following Up-on the interest of him who committed the waste, with no estate of freehold intervening.97 Nor could any person maintain this action, unless he had an estate of inheritance at the time when the waste was committed, and therefore it did not lie by an heir for waste done in the time of his ancestor, nor by the grantee of a reversion for waste committed before the grant to him.98 it was furthermore necessary that privity exist between the plaintiff and defendant at the time of bringing the action.99

In cases in which an injunction is granted, an accounting by the tenant as to the proceeds of waste .already committed may be ordered, to prevent multiplicity of suits.91 Ordinarily, if there is no right to an injunction, owing to the fact that the tenant committing waste has transferred his interests, or for other reason, no accounting will be allowed, and the reversioner must seek redress at law.92 But an accounting has been ordered, apart from any injunction, as incident to a discovery,93 in the case of waste by a deceased person, the proceeds of which have gone to swell the assets of his estate,94 and presumably it would be allowed in the case of equitable waste.95

There may be a mandatory injunction to compel the person committing waste to restore the things wasted, when such restoration is possible.96

- (c) Persons entitled to sue. The action of waste, as established under the old English statutes, could be brought only by him who had the reversion or

Cas. 709; Grand Canal co. v. Mc-Namee, 29 L. R. Ir. 131; Meux v. Cobley [1892] 2 Ch. 253; Brown v. Niles 165 Mass. 276, 43 N. E. 90; Butts v. Fox, 107 Mo. App. 370, 81 S. W. 493. And see Hubble v. Cole, 85 Va. 87, 7 S. E. 242.

91. Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 262; Watson v. Wolff-Goldman Realty Co., 95 Ark. 18, 128 S. W. 581; Fleming v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230; Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357; Anstays v. Anderson, 194 Mich. 681, 160 N. W. 475; Disher v. Disher, 45 Neb. 100, 63 N. W. 368; Ackermrn v. Hartley, 8 N. J. Eq. 476; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 259; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411. See Jangerman v. Bovee, 19 Gal. 354.

92. Jesus College v. Bloom 3 Atk. 263; Smith v. Cooke, 3 Atk. 378; Parrott v. Palmer, 3 Mylne & K. 632; Lefforge v. West, 2 Ind. 544; Dennett v. Dennett, 43 N. H. 499; Lippincott v. Barton, 42 N J. Eq. 272; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 259; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio St 180; Compare Rupel v. Ohio Oil Co., - Ind. -95 N. E. 225.