GEORGES CREEK COMPANY VS. DETMOLD. 377

persons, upon paying a stipulated mine rent to the plaintiffs,
and a road, the termini of which should be a mine and the fur-
nace, would avail him nothing, so far as this right is concerned.
Again, the rent to be paid by the defendant was to be nominal
for two years and two months, after which a substantial rent
was to be paid; but, it was provided, that if within the two
years and two months, the plaintiffs should make a rail or other
road from their works at Lonaconing to the rail road of the
Maryland Mining Company, then the same identical rent should
become payable as would have become payable at the expira-
tion of the said period of two years and two months, provided,
the -transportation on said road should be done by the plaintiff
for the defendant at the rate mentioned in the agreement. It
would seem, therefore, that the payment of this substantial rent
was in the view of the parties connected with the enjoyment of
the right to reach the road of the Maryland Mining Company,
and by it to get to market.

There are, however, other provisions in the contract which
are calculated to lead us to a different conclusion; and, if re-
quired not to put a construction upon it, I would look carefully
into its several stipulations, and endeavor to arrive at the inten-
tions of the parties, to be collected from the entire instrument.
But, I do not think the decision of this motion requires me now
to expound this contract.

If the defendant was a mere stranger and trespasser, it has
been conceded, indeed since the case of Amelung vs. .Sepkamp
it could not be denied, the plaintiff would not be entitled to
what has been called the strong and menacing hand of an in-
junction, unless he could show a case of great and irremediable
mischief, which damages could not compensate. But, it is
supposed, that as in this case, the relation of landlord and ten-
ant exists; that is, there is privity of title, that the court will,
by injunction, stay the commission of any act, which, when
committed, would be waste at common law, and that, cutting
down timber is such waste. Chancellor Kent has said, and
cites authority to prove, that the American doctrine on the sub-
ject of waste is somewhat varied from the English law, and is
32*