544 DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND.

benefit of it, unless he could specifically enjoy it. Fells v. Read,
3 Ves. 71; Lady Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. 148.

Looking to the general reasoning and principles of those various
cases in which the English Court of Chancery interposes for the
preservation of property, the right to which is in litigation, it does
indeed seem strange, that it has so pertinaciously refused an in-
junction to prevent irreparable mischief, and to put a stop to the
further commission of waste upon real estate during the con-
tinuance of an action at law to try the right. It is admitted, that
there is no good reason why the Court should not interfere in such
cases. Should it turn out, that the defendant had an unques-
tionable title, then the granting of such an injunction could only
operate temporarily and partially to the prejudice of the free
* exercise of his light of property. But on the other hand,
580 if it should be eventually shewn, that the plaintiff had the
title, then, as the injunction turns no one out of possession, nor
displaces anything, it must necessarily leave to the defendant the
advantage of fighting the plaintiff with his own property. Upon
which, had not the injunction been granted, the most irretrievable
destruction might have been perpetrated; acts of waste might
have been committed which would deprive the plaintiff of the very
substance of his inheritance; mischief might have been done
which it would require years to repair; and things might have
been torn away or destroyed which it would be difficult or im-
possible to restore in kind; such as the buildings, fixtures, trees,
or other peculiarities about the estate, which a multitude of asso-
ciated recollections had rendered precious to their owner; but, as
a compensation for the loss of which a jury would not give one
cent beyond their mere value. A man has a right to secure to
himself a property even in his amusements; and, it is not fit in
any such cases to cast it to the estimation of people, who may
have not the least sympathy with the feelings of the owner, to set
a value upon his privileges or his property. Fells v. Bead, 3 Ves.
70; Smith v. Collyer, 8 Ves. 89; Berkely v. Brymer, 9 Ves. 356;
Lady Arundell v. Pliipps, 10 Ves. 148; Courthope v. Mapplesden, 10
Ves. 291; Lou-ther v. Lord Lowther, 13 Ves. 95; Crockford v. Alex-
ander, 15 Ves. 138; Earl Cowper v. Baiter, 17 Fes. 128; Astley v.
Weldon, 2 Bos. & Put. 351; Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & Bea. 349.

The High Court oi' Chancery of Maryland has from the begin-
ning, or certainly for a great length of time past, in this respect,
acted more in harmony with its general principles, than the Court
of Chancery of England, by interposing to prevent waste and
destruction in all cases, during the continuance of a suit in which
the title to the property has been, or may be brought in question;
as well where the subject of litigation was real estate, as where it
was mere perishable personalty, or money, or chases in action in
the hands of the defendant. A similar and equally extensive