DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 535

A mere threat to commit waste IB a sufficient foundation for an injunction,

before any waste has been done.
When the bill is for an injunction to stay further waste, and waste has been

already committed, the Court, to prevent a double suit, will decree an

account for what is past.
But a bill for an account of waste will not lie when an injunction cannot be

asked.

A conveyance, shewn to be fraudulent, declared to be void as against credi-
tors, (c)
The title to land sold under a fieri facias passes by the sale; but there must

be some written, and recorded evidence of the sale; such as a return to

the execution under which the sale was made, (d)
Where lands have been sold under a fieri facias, the sheriff should, in his

return, sufficiently describe the land sold by him. (e]

This bill was filed, on the 26th of February, 1827, by Charles
Duvall, against Nathan Waters, Nathan I. Waters, and Samuel
Ratcliff. It alleged, that Samuel Peach had obtained a judgment
at law against Nathan Waters upon which he had sued out a fieri
* facias, by which the lands in question were taken and sold,
as the property of the defendant Nathan Waters; and this 570
plaintiff became the purchaser; that Nathan Waters had, with in-
tent to defraud his creditors, without any valuable consideration
previously conveyed those lands to the defendants Nathan I.
Waters and Samuel Ratcliff. Whereupon it was prayed, that the
conveyance might be set aside as fraudulent and void, The de-
fendants put their answers to this bill: and commissions were
issued and testimony collected. All the material particulars of
this case are stated by the Chancellor in delivering his opinion on
pronouncing the final decree.

On the 18th of July, 1827, this plaintiff filed another bill here
against these same defendants, reciting the nature and pendency
of the former bill; and alleging, that, since the institution of that
suit, the defendants had been committing great waste, by cutting
large quantities of timber, with a view of removing it from the
land; and by destroying the wood. Whereupon the plaintiff
prated for an injunction commanding the defendants not to com-
mit further waste by cutting, or removing from the lands any tim-
ber; or by destroying the wood; and, not to do any act that might
be in any wise prejudicial to the inheritance; and for general re-
lief. Which injunction was granted as prayed. The defendants
put in an answer to this bill, in which they averred, that the convey-
ance was made for a good and valuable consideration; and in short
denied the plaintiff's title, and all the material facts upon which his

(e) Cited in McDowell v. Goldsmith, 6 Md. 340.

(d) See Boring v. Lemmon, 5 H. & J. 223; Barney v. Patterson, 6 H. & J.
182; Clarke v. Belmear, 1 G. & J. 443.

(e) See Waters v. Duvall, 11 G. & J. 37.