GEORGES CREEK COMPANY VS. DETMOLD. 373

mitted to make tram and other roads for the transportation of
materials to and from the furnace and mines, but not so as to
interfere with existing roads," &c.

There was a further stipulation, that the defendant should
have the right to put up additional blast furnaces, &c.; and, it
was provided, that if during the term of the agreement, the de-
fendant should erect works for the manufacture of bar or mal-
leable iron, then the company stipulated to execute to him a lease
of ninety-nine years, renewable forever. There was then a
provision, that at the expiration of seven years, (unless defend-
ant should entitle himself to a renewable lease for ninety-nine
years,) that the improvements and erections made by the de-
fendant, (except dwelling houses,) and all rail or tram roads,
other than thos« made with the tram-plates furnished by the
company, should be restored by the defendant to the company,
at a valuation to be put upon them by disinterested parties.

The defendant took possession under this agreement, and so
continues to the present time; but, on the 5th of September
last, the complainant filed a bill in this court, charging the de-
fendant with various acts, alleged to be violations of the con-
tract, and of a nature which, in the opinion of the court, enti-
tled the plaintiff to an injunction to prevent their repetition.

These acts were, first, the cutting down of wood and tim-
ber upon the lands of the plaintiff, for the purpose of erecting
and constructing a saw mill, on ground adjacent to the furnace
and steam engine by which the furnace is worked, with the de-
sign of employing the engine in working the saw mill; and
secondly, in cutting down wood and timber for the purpose of
making a rail or tram road from the furnace, through the lands
of the complainant, and other intervening lands of other parties
to the rail road of the Maryland Mining Company, distant about
seven miles from the furnace, and not touching at any point the
lands of the complainant.

The bill alleges, that the agreement gives the defendant no
authority to erect a saw mill on the lands of the complainant,
or to cut wood and timber thereon for that purpose, or to make
a rail or a tram road, of which the termini are not at the fur-
VOL.i—32