110 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

A person who acquires personal assets by being party to a breach of trust, or
devastavit by the executor or administrator, may be held liable.

of trespass, ejectment, or under the statutes for forcible entry, and in such
case equity cannot interfere. Pfelz v. Pfelz, 14 Md. 377.

The digging and removing ore from ore beds held, under certain circum-
stances, to be a trespass which worked a permanent injury to the property,
and which should be enjoined. Scully v. Rose. 61 Md. 408. Digging deep
holes and planting therein large stone pillars or abutments, carrying away
large banks of clay, and constructing an aqueduct through, and thus per-
manently dividing the complainant's land, are acts which, if done without
authority of law, would present a case of irreparable damage authorizing an
injunction. Reddall v. Bryan, 14 Md. 444. The permitting a race or ditch
to remain out of repair so that the water filtrates through the bank, thereby
flooding and injuring the meadow of the complainant, is not such an injury
as will authorize the interference of equity by injunction. Carlisle v. Steven-
son. 3 Md. Ch. 500. If actions at law had been brought and damages recov-
ered, and the defendant still permitted the ditch to remain in a defective
condition, then equity would interfere by injunction because it would be
shown that the law was inadequate to afford relief. Ibid. If the race was
in as good condition as it was during the life of the person under whom both
parties claim, or if the injury was caused by the act of the complainant
himself, then he could not have redress in any Court. Ibid.

Taking possession of a portion of a city building lot and erecting thereon
a building, thereby reducing the front of the lot so as to prevent the plain-
tiff's building upon it himself in the most advantageous mode, goes to the
destruction, pro tanto, of the estate and impairs the just enjoyment of the
property in future, and will be restrained by injunction. Herr v. Bierbower,
8 Md. Ch. 456. But the erection of a wood fence upon a part of such lot and
the admission of such trespass, does not per se furnish a claim to the aid of
equity. Ibid.

The complainant charged that the defendant was about to erect upon the
pavement a permanent iron awning post. &c., which would operate as a con-
tinuing trespass to the irreparable injury of the property of complainant.
But he failed to show either by allegation or proof how such injury was to
follow. Held, that having failed to present a case in which he was unable
to recover ample redress in an action at law, the complainant was not entitled
to an injunction. Whalen v. Dalashmutt, 59 Md. 250. Injunction granted
to restrain unauthorized use of a church and interference with meetings.
Gilbert v. Arnold, 30 Md. 37.

An injunction granted to stay trespass, there being then depending no suit
to try the right, will be dissolved on the coming in of the answer denying
the trespass, and alleging that the acts complained of were on defendant's
own land. Stewart v. Chew, 3 Bland, 440. Where a defendant asserts posi-
tively that it is not his intention to do a certain act, or to violate any particu-
lar right claimed by the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to show the con-
trary, the Court will not interfere. It will neither grant nor continue an in-
junction in the face of such disclaimer. Whalen v. Dalashmutt, 59 Md. 250.

3. Waste. Waste is the abuse or destructive use of property by him who
has not an absolute unqualified title, while trespass is generally an injury
to, or use of the property by one who has no right whatever. Duvall v.
Waters, \ Bland, 569. When any permanent injury is done by the holder of
the particular estate to the inheritance, or to the prejudice of one having an
interest in it, it is properly called waste. Ibid. An injunction to stay waste