556 HILL v. BOWIE.—1 BLAND.

593 *HILL v. BOWIE.

INJUNCTION TO STAY WASTE.

An injunction to stay waste pending an action at law is in nature of a writ
of estrepement.

The restriction of such an injunction should in its commencement be co-
extensive with the plaintiff's pretensions as set forth here or in his suit
at law. But after the suit, which had been instituted here or at law to
try the right, has been determined, then, according to the nature of that
determination, the injunction may be altogether dissolved, or be made
perpetual only to the extent to which the plaintiff has recovered.

This bill was filed on the 14th of December, 1826, by Morgan
Hill against Daniel Bowie. It states that the plaintiff was in
possession of a part of a tract of land called Grammar's Chance,
to which he had a good title in fee simple; that the defendant
had committed waste upon it by cutting down timber trees; and
that he, this plaintiff, had brought an action of quare clausum
fregit against the defendant to try the title to the land; which
action was then depending. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed for
an injunction to stay waste, &c. An injunction was granted as
prayed.

The defendant put in his answer, in which he admitted, that the
plaintiff was entitled to a certain part of the tract of land as stated;
but he averred, that a part of the same tract of land belonged .to his,
the defendant's wife, the boundaries of which part had been well
ascertained; and the defendant denied, that he had committed any
waste as charged by the bill.

On the 11h of September, 1828, the plaintiff filed a supplemental
bill in which he alleged, that he had obtained a verdict and judg-
ment in his action of trespass; and thereupon prayed, that the in-
junction might be made perpetual.

The defendant, by his answer to this supplemental bill, admitted,
that the plaintiff' had recovered a judgment as stated; but averred,
that although by the verdict it had been ascertained, that a part of
the land, on which it appeared the defendant had trespassed, was
the property of the plaintiff; yet it had not ascertained the claim
and pretensions of the plaintiff to be as extensive as in his bill he
had supposed.

BLAND, C., 25th February, 1829.—This case having been sub-
mitted on bill and answer, the proceedings were read and con-
sidered.

An injunction of this description is in the nature, and in all re-
spects performs the office of the ancient writ of estrepement. It