DUVALL v. WATERS.—1 BLAND. 547

which an injunction was granted in the year 1803, apparently
without hesitation, to stay waste until the final judgment in an
action of ejectment. In which case, on its being urged that the
defendant ought not to be thus deprived of the free use of his
property, the Court said, that he had no other mode of relieving
himself from the restriction than by pressing the action at law to
a conclusion as speedily as possible.(i) I have met with many

Chancery their bill of complaint for relief in equity, and to stay the com-
mission of waste in and upon part of a tract of land called Mountenay's
Neck lying and being in Baltimore County, pending a certain action of eject-
ment brought by them the said Edward Flannagan and Elizabeth his wife,
against you the said Michael Krips. as tenant in possession of said land, or
some part thereof, in the General Court of the Western Shore: We there-
fore command, and strictly injoin you the said Michael Krips, your agents,
hirelings and servants, and every of them to stay, surcease and forbear dig-
ging, carrying away and removing the dirt, earth and soil of the said land
and premises; or doing or committing any manner of waste, spoil, and de-
struction thereon, pending the said suit, or until the further order of the
High Court of Chancery. Hereof fail not. as you will answer the contrary
at your peril.

Witness the Honorable John Rogers, Esquire. Chancellor, this 38th day of
April, Anno Domini, 1783. WM. HYDE. Reg. Cur. Can.

See Old Book of Forms, page 13.

(i) GITTINGS v. DEW.—The bill states, that the plaintiff James Gittings was
seized and possessed of several parcels of land in Baltimore County, into a
part of which the defendant Robert Dew had wrongfully entered; that the
plaintiff had commenced an action of ejectment agaiast the defendant to
to recover such parts as he had entered upon, which suit was then unde-
termined; that the defendant was cutting down the timber and other trees
thereon and making great waste and destruction, and the plaintiff appre-
hended would continue to do so. Upon which the bill prayed for a subpoena
and an injunction, prohibiting the defendant, his agents, &c. from cutting
down or carrying away timber trees or other trees or wood growing and
being on. the land: and from committing any waste thereon until the final
decision and judgment In the ejectment: or until further order. &c.

HAKSON, C., 14th January. 1803.—Issue subpoena and. injunction agree-
ably to the prayer of this bill.

It does not appear that the defendant ever put in any answer to this bill.
But on the petition of the plaintiff, stating that the defendant had com-
mitted waste in breach of the injunction, accompanied by an affidavit of
Archibald Davis stating the circumstances, an attachment was ordered on
the 1st of January, 1807, returnable to February Term. The attachment
having been issued and served, the defendant Dew appeared and filed his
answer on oath, to the petition, in which he states, that he had cut some
cordwood as alleged; but that the plaintiff had not, as he ought to have
done, caused the surveyor to lay down his claim and pretensions; that this
defendant had been assured by his counsel, that after the first term to which
the injunction was returnable he had a right to cut wood; that under such
an impression, and firmly believing as he then did, that the plaintiff had no
right to the land, he had cut the cord wood as stated; but in doing so, he had