538 DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND.

without any remedy at common law. The action of waste could
only have been brought by him who had the immediate reversion
or remainder, to the disinheritance of whom the waste was always
alleged to have been committed, and therefore, if a lease had been
made to A for life or years, remainder to B for life; and A committed
waste, the action could not be brought by him, in reversion or
remainder, so long as * the life estate of B continued. But the
573 intervening life estate only suspended the remedy; for, after
its termination, the reversioner, or remainderman might then bring
his action against A for the waste done before that time. Co. Lilt. 53:
Clifton's Case, 5 Co. 76. Nor could any one maintain this
action unless he had the estate of inheritance in him at the time
the waste was committed; nor could it be sustained against an
executor, for waste committed by his testator, it being a wrong
which died with the person; nor could one coparcener bring an
action of waste against another; although one joint tenant or tenant
in common might have a writ of waste against his co-tenant, com-
pelling him either to make partition, and take the place wasted as
his own share, or to give security not to commit any further waste.
2 Inst. 302, 305, 403; 3 Blac. Com. 227.

At the common law there was no process by which a threatened
trespass upon a real estate, however great or irreparable, could be
prevented. After the act was done the injured owner might bring
his action of trespass against the wrong-doer, and recover satisfac-
tion in damages; but, the common law gave him no means of pre-
venting the execution of the designs and threats of any one, whose
declared and settled purpose was to commit a trespass upon his
lands. If however the claimant was not in possession, and he
thought proper to bring an action to establish his right, and re-
cover the estate; then, and in aid of such suit, and to prevent any
injury from being done to the property, pending the controversy,
the common law gave the writ of estrepement. Jacob. L. Dic. verb
Estrepement. It would seem, that originally this writ could only be
used as an aid to a real action for the recovery of the land itself;
but, its scope having been extended by statute, it was afterwards
used in connexion with actions in which no land was demanded,
as in actions of waste, trespass, &c. It was not, however, allowed
to be associated with a suit for partition; because the tenants,
being both of them in possession, there was no reason why one
should be restrained and not the other. A writ of estrepement
might be sued out at the same time, and together with the origi-
nal writ, commencing the action; and that too, in those cases where
damages for waste done, pending the action; might be re-
covered; because it was injurious to the commonwealth that
waste should be done, and peradventure he who committed it
might not be able to satisfy the plaintiff his full damages. 2 Inst.
328.