DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 545

application of the writ of injunction to stay waste, appears to have
been made by the Courts of Chancery of Virginia and South Caro-
lina. Harris v. Thomas, 1 Hen. & Mun. 18; Shubrick v. Guerard,
2 Desau. 616. As I liave before observed, there is sufficient evi-
dence of the writ of estrepement having been at one time often re-
sorted to in this State; although it has now fallen into total disuse.
But even that writ must have been a very tardy and inadequate
remedy compared with an injunction: which is the only judicial
proceeding, that seems to be, in all respects, capable, by its
promptness and vigor, of preventing irreparable mischief from
being done to real estate pending the litigation, by a provoked
and desperate defendant.

When this mode of interposing by injunction to stay waste,
pending au action at law or a bill in Chancery, was first allowed
by this Court, I have not been able distinctly to ascertain; but it
is evident, that it had been considered as a settled course of pro-
ceeding under the Provincial Government; for upon an informa-
tion in Chancery, filed oil the 13th of April, 1775, by the Attorney-
General, at the relation of Josias Bowen, against Nicholas Nor-
wood, to vacate a patent grant for a tract of land, it was alleged,
that the defendant in possession was committing great waste; to
stay which an injunction was asked and immediately granted until
the final hearing, (g) I have seen a case of this kind, in which, in

(g) THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. NORWOOD.—This was an information filed
in the High Court of Chancery, on the 13th of April, 1775. at the relation of
Josias Bowen to vacate a patent which had been obtained by the father of
the defendants, for a tract of land, which the relator had previously caused
to be surveyed; but was prevented from obtaining a patent for it, by the
father of the defendants having fraudulently contrived previously to get a
patent for the same land.

The information states, that in confidence of his being clearly entitled to
a patent, the relator had brought his action of ejectment against the father
of the defendants; pending which action his certificate was caveated, and
the caveat ruled good, by reason of Norwood's producing an elder patent:
which patent it is averred he had fraudulently obtained; that afterwards
the relator's action of ejectment was non pross'd with costs: which judg-
ment he superseded; that Norwood, after that, conveyed the land to his son,
this defendant Nicholas Norwood; and, by his will, appointed his other son,
the defendant Edward Norwood, his executor, and died; that Nicholas Nor-
wood had taken possession of the land, and was committing great waste;
and that Edward Norwood had, by scire facias, revived the judgment for
costs in the action of ejectment, and threatened to sue out execution against
the relator.

Upon which the information prayed, that the patent obtained by Norwood
might be vacated, and possession of the land delivered; that Nicholas Nor-
wood might, by an injunction, be restrained from committing waste, &c.;
and that Edward Norwood might be prohibited from proceeding at law.

The relator made affidavit to the truth of the facts set forth in the inform-
ation : and also gave bond to prosecute as in common cases to stay proceed-

35 1 B.