BROWN VS. STEWART. 91

settlement referred to, and unless that settlement, manifested
and sanctioned by his hand and seal, can be shown by proof to
have been founded upon mistake, or procured by fraud, it must
conclude the antecedent transactions between the parties, and
more especially those transactions upon which the settlement
professes to have acted. *

I think it, therefore, very clear, that so far as this defendant
has attempted to remove the ground upon which this injunction
rests, by attempting to show an extinguishment of the com-
plainant's claim, he has not succeeded, but that the latter must,
at least in this stage of the cause, be considered as having a ti-
tle to sue upon the mortgage.

The object of this bill, as we have seen, is not only to pro-
cure a sale of the property mortgaged, for the payment of the
claim of the complainant, but upon the averment of the sale of
a portion thereof, and the apprehended disposition of the resi-
due by the defendant, and the consequent diminution or de-
struction of the security for the debt, the court was called upon
to interpose its conservative power for the protection of the
rights of the complainant.

That a mortgagee, prior to the period when he may proceed
to foreclose and sell the property mortgaged, may, by a bill in
equity, with such averments as are contained in this bill, obtain
an injunction as a preventive remedy against the apprehended
danger, has been decided by the Court of Appeals. Clagett et
al. vs. Salman, 5 G. & J.) 314. But that court has not decided,
nor do I find it, so far as my examination has extended, ex-
pressly decided anywhere, that the court will put forth its au-
thority in this way after the debt has become due, and conse-
quently at a period when the mortgagee has a right to ask for a
foreclosure and sale of the property. I do not, however, find
the contrary to be decided, and it seems to me the administration
of justice would be defective if the power invoked by this bill
is denied the court.

If a mortgagor in possession is committing waste, equity will
restrain him by injunction; though in one case, Lord Thurlow
appeared to question the doctrine, upon the notion that the