MURDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 449

to the use of it for a canal, or for propelling a mill; an injunction
which commanded that the party should not thereafter continue
to cause the stream to flow thus irregularly, seemed indirectly to
command, and no doubt did involve the repairing of the breaches,
and the removing of the obstructions which had caused
* the injurious irregularity complained- of. From the pecu- 471
liar nature of those cases, however, it is obvious that the existing
and natural state of things could not otherwise have been pre-
served. The injunction, in those cases, did not command any
thing to be undone, but merely that an injurious irregularity should
not be any longer continued, considering the continuance of the
act as a repetition of it. Ryder v. Bentliam, 1 Ves. 543; Robin-
sor v. Byron, 1 Bro. C. C. 588; Anonymous. 1 Ves. Jun. 140:
Lane v. Newdigate, 10 Ves. 193; Blakemore v. The Glamorgan-
shire Canal Narigation, 6 Cond. Cha. Rep. 544; Eden Inj. 238.

This Court has always been governed by these principles in
granting injunctions in so limited a form, as expressly, or in terms
to require no alteration in the existing state of things, or any
thing to be undone or restored; except in so far as a restoration
may consequentially follow as a necessary result of the merely re-
strictive operation of the injunction. As in cases between tenants
in common, the Court may, under some circumstances, by an in-
junction or the appointment of a receiver, prevent one of them
from taking all the profits to the absolute and total exclusion of
the other; the obvious and necessary consequence of which must
be to restore the plaintiff prospectively to the enjoyment of an im-
portant benefit. And yet the injunction itself could not command
the defendant to undo any thing he had done: to re-instate any
thing he had altered; or to restore to the plaintiff any tiling of
which he had been deprived. Tyson v. Fairclough, 1 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 380. (e)

(e) NORWOOD v. NORWOOD.—This bill was filed on the 11th of May, 1796.
by Edward Norwood against Samuel Norwood. It states that Edward Nor-
wood, the father of the parties, by his last will and testament, bearing date
on the 25th March. 1770, devised as follows:

"I give and bequeath to my dearly and well beloved wife Mary Norwood,
all that part of a tract or parcel of land called United Friendship, lying be-
tween the Dry Run and Persimmon, and northward as far as the line of the
land called The Forest, for and during her natural life and no longer. I
give and bequeath to my sou Ed ward Norwood and my son Samuel Norwood,
all the tract of land whereon I now dwell called United Friendship, to be
equally divided between them, their heirs or assigns, forever: but in case
either of my said sons should die before they come of age, then it is my
will that the survivor shall have and possess the whole tract, but not to dis-
turb my wife during her life; and if it should so happen, that both my sous
Edward and Samuel, should die before they come of age, then it is my will,
that it shall be equally divided between my three daughters and youngest

29 2 B.