DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 541

contract between the parties. A mere threat to commit waste is
a sufficient foundation for an injunction before any waste has been
actually done. Gibson v. Smith, 2 Atk. 183; Hannay v. McEntire,
11 Ves. 54; Coffin v. Coffin, Jacob, 70. And an injunction may be
granted where no account of damages could be claimed; or where
the waste done is so insignificant that there could be no recovery
of damages at law. The Universities of Ox. & Cam. v. Richardson,
6 Fes. 706; The Keepers. &c. of Harrow School v. Alderton, 2 Bos.
& Pul. 86. It may be granted in favor of a child en venire sa
mere; Robinson v. Litton, 3 Atk. 211; in favor of trustees to pre-
serve a contingent remainder, before the contingent remainderman
has come in es,se; Garth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. 754; in favor of any one
entitled to a contingent or executory estate of inheritance; Bewick
v. Whitfield, 3 P. Will. 268, note; Hayward v. Stillingfleet, 1 Atk.
422; and in favor of a remainderman or reversioner, where there
is an intervening estate for life. Bewick v. Whitfield, 3 P. Will.
268, note; Farrant v. Lorel, 3 Atk. 723. An injunction may be
obtained, in respect of equitable waste, against a tenant in tail
after possibility of issue extinct; Abraham v. Bubb, 2 Freem. 53;
agaiiist a tenant for life without impeachment of waste; Lord
Bernard's Case, Prec. Chan. 454; and against a mortgagor or
mortgagee in possession. Farrant v. Lorel, 3 Atk. 723; Humphreys
v. Harrison, 1 Jac. & Walk. 561. An injunction may be granted
as between tenants in common, joint tenants, and coparceners,
against malicious destruction, or when the tenant committing the
waste is insolvent, or is occupying tenant to the plaintiff. Small-
man v. Onions, 3 Bro. C. C. 621; Hole v. Thomas, 7 Fes. 589; Twort
v. Twort, 16 Ves. 128. And so too, where some of the heirs had
filed their bill in this Court against the rest to obtain a partition
according to the Act to Direct Descents, and one of the heirs, who
was in possession, was committing waste; upon a *represen- 577
tation of the fact, by the trustee appointed to make sale of
the lands for the purpose of effecting a partition, he was restrained
by injunction. Clarke v. Clark, MS. 24th January, 1822. 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 and satisfaction for what is past, and not oblige
the plaintiff to bring an action at law as well as a bill in equity;
but such decree for the past is only given as an incident to the
injunction, to obtain which the plaintiff was under a necessity of
coming into Chancery; and, consequently, it may be regarded as
a general rule, to which there are few exceptions, that when no
injunction is, or can be asked for or granted, a bill to have an
account of past waste, and nothing more, cannot be sustained, the
proper remedy being at law. Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 262;
Eden Inj. 146.