378 HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY.

more enlarged, and better accommodated to the circumstances of
a new and growing country. 4 Kenfs Corn., 76.

In discussing the remedies now resorted to for waste, he says,
the ancient remedy by writ of estrapement, and writ of waste,
at common law, are essentially obsolete, and the modern prac-
tice in this country as well as in England, is to have recourse
to the prompt and efficacious remedy by an injunction bill, to
stop the commission of waste, when the injury would be irrep-
arable, or by a special action on the case, in the nature of waste,
to recover damages. 4 Kent's Corn., 77, 78.

But, notwithstanding this remark, which was made, not with
reference to a mere stranger or trespasser, but as applicable to
cases in which there was privity of title, I am of opinion, that
the court will interfere much more readily in the latter, than in
the former case, and, that it is only in the case of a mere tres-
pass by a stranger, or person claiming adversely, that this
court will withhold its arm, unless the trespass be productive
of irreparable mischief or ruin; or to prevent a multiplicity of
suits, or where the interposition of the court is required by some
very special circumstances. Such is the language of the Court
of Appcola in Amelung vs. Seekamp, and the distinction
between the case of a stranger entering upon land as a tres-
passer, and were this is privity of title, is clearly recognised
by Chancellor Kent himself, in Livingsfon vs. Livingston, 6
Johns. Ch. Rep., 497.

The counsel for the plaintiff insists, that, in the case of
waste, it is not necessary to show irreparable injury or destruc-
tion to the estate, to entitle him to the remedy by injunction;

and it may be, that such is the rule, where there is privity of
title, as between tenants for life or years, and the revisioner ;

but, I am clearly of opinion, that, as between strangers, or par-
ties claiming adversely, there is no such distinction between
trespass and waste, and that in both, under such circumstances,
the injury must be shown to be irreparable, before this court
will grant an injunction.

Waste in timber, consists in cutting down, lopping, topping,
or doing any act whereby it may be brought to decay, Coke