DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 543

fendant who confessedly held only as tenant. Lathropp v. Marsh,
5 Ves. 259; Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 260, note; Onslow v. ——
16 Ves. 173. Whence it was evident, that there can be no means
of preventing waste from being done upon real estate, in England,
pending a suit to determine the title, other than the writ of estrepe-
ment; and that writ, it is said, has fallen into disuse. 3 lilac. Com.
227; Calvert v. Gason, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 561.

But in a variety of other cases the English Court of Chancery
is in the habit of exercising its preventative and conservative
powers for the express purpose of preserving the subject of litiga-
tion from waste, injury, or total loss, pending the controversy.

lu cases of patent rights, where the plaintiff is in possession of
the invention, under color of title, an injunction may be granted
pending the proceedings at law to try the right. The Unirersities
of Ox. & Cam. v. Richardson, 6 Ves. 089. And so, too, where the
plaintiff claims the copy-right of a book, an injunction may be
granted to prevent publication, during the continuance of a suit
at law. In cases of copy-right the jurisdiction is assumed merely
for the purpose of making the legal right effectual, which
* cannot be done by any action for damages, because, if the 579
work is pirated, it is impossible to lay before a jury the whole evi-
dence as to all the publications, which go out to the world, to the
plaintiff's prejudice: and therefore, with a view to make the legal
right effectual, the publication will be altogether prohibited. Where
a fair doubt appears, as to the plaintiff's legal right, the Court
always directs it to be tried; making some provision in the interim,
the best that can be, for the benefit of both parties. Hogg v. Kirby,
8 Ves. 215; Wilkins v. Aikin, 17 Ves. 422; Rundell v. Murray, Jac.
Rep. 311; Act of Congress, loth February, 1819, eh. 19. And on a
proper case being presented the Court will grant an injunction,
and appoint a receiver to preserve personal property while a suit
is depending in the Ecclesiastical Court, although an administra-
tion pendente lite might be there obtained. Atkinson v. Henshaw,
2 Ves. & Ben. 85. In general, where personal property, or the
rents and profits of real estate in dispute, are in imminent danger
of being wasted or lost, a receiver may be appointed to take care
of it, for the benefit of all concerned, pending the controversy.
Powell Mort. 294, note. To accelerate the progress of the suit, as
well as for the greater security of the fund, for the benefit of those
who may ultimately appear to be entitled to it, money may be
ordered to be brought into Court where the defendant admits, that
he has it in his hands, and that he has no title to it. Gordon v.
Rothley, 3 Ves. 572; Freeman v. Fairlie, 3 Meriv, 29. And there
are many instances where the Court interposes by injunction to
secure the enjoyment of specific chattels; either because of their
peculiar character; or because, from the nature of the property,
it would be difficult or impossible for the plaintiff to have the full