GEORGES CREEK COMPANY VS. DETMOLD. 379

Lit., 53 A.; and yet it is impossible to maintain, that such
waste, if committed by a mere stranger and trespasser, would
justify this court in granting an injunction, unless it could be
shown not to be susceptible of a perfect pecuniary compensa-
tion. The Court of Appeals have said otherwise—they have
said, the injury must be shown to be irreparable, and destruc-
tive to the plaintiff's estate, and incapable of a perfect pecuni-
ary compensation, in the ordinary course of law.

The answer in this case, denies the charge in the bill, that
the cutting down the timber required for the construction of the
road will do the plaintiff irreparable injury, or leave the lands
without an adequate supply of wood and timber for its pur-
poses as an appendage to the furnace, and I see nothing in the
evidence to overthrow or destroy the effect of the answer.

It must, therefore, upon this motion, be assumed, that if the
injunction is dissolved, the injuries complained of in the bill
are not irreparable, but are susceptible of a perfect pecuniary
compensation; and if so, then it clearly follows, that the in-
junction must be dissolved, unless it can be supported upon
the ground of privity of title, so as to exempt the defendant
from an action of trespass for the damage, the principle being,
that if adequate redress can be had at law, the hand of this
court will not be extended to prevent the trespass.

It becomes, therefore, material to inquire, whether, with res-
pect to the lands upon which this wood and timber are grow-
ing, the defendant can be regarded as a tenant to the complain-
ant. For, if he be not a tenant, then conceding that irrepara-
ble injury need not be shown when there is privity to the title,
to induce this court to interpose by injunction, but that it will
interfere in this form in every case of waste at common law,
still the writ of injunction would not be the appropriate remedy
in this case.

Now, I do not understand that the plaintiff leased to the de-
fendant any thing more than the furnace and its appendages,
and some adjacent ground sufficient to facilitate the operations
of the furnace. The other rights of the defendant, under the
contract, are mere easements, or privileges, to be enjoyed,