CHILDS VS. SMITH. 485

the equity side of Calvert County Court, where the proceed-
ings for the partition were conducted; and moved for a disso-
lution of the injunction.

This motion was argued before the Chancellor, who, in his
opinion, proceeded first to dispose of the objections above
mentioned.]

THE CHANCELLOR:

This objection, [the first,] did not appear to me to be tena-
ble, and therefore I consider it proper to relieve the counsel for
the complainants from the necessity of replying to the argu-
ment in support of it.

The bill alleges, not only the commission of waste by the
defendant, the dowress, but an intention to do so in future, and
it seems to me to be conclusively established, that a court of
equity in such circumstances, may interfere by injunction. 1
Rojoer on Husband and Wife, 419, 420, 421; Whitfield vs.
Bewit, 2 P. Wm., 240. Chancellor Kent says, that the an-
cient remedies for waste by writ of estrepecnent, and writ of
waste at common law, are essentially obsolete, and the modern
practice in this country, as well as in England, is ready to re-
sort to the prompt and efficacious remedy by an injunction bill,
to stop the commission of waste, when the injury would be ir-
reparable, or by a special action on the case, in the nature of
waste, to recover damages. 4 Kent's Corn., 77.

[As to the other objections, the Chancellor said :]

The reasoning in support of the objection, would seem to
extend to every case in which our equity tribunals are called
upon to interfere with the progress of suits, or to stay the exe-
cution of judgments at law. The partition was made under the
act to direct descents, and the proceedings was on the common
law side of the County Court; and no reason suggests itself,
why this court should, upon a proper case, abstain from grant-
ing relief to the complainants, which would not apply with
equal force to every application to it, to enjoin proceedings
upon judgments, and suits at law in the county courts.
41'