570 DUVALL v. WATERS.

-facias, by which the lands in question were taken and sold, as
the property of the defendant Nathan Waters; and this plaintiff
became the purchaser; that Nathan Waters had, with intent
to defraud his creditors, without any valuable consideration, pre-
viously conveyed those lands to the defendants Nathan L Waters
and Samuel Ratcliff. Whereupon it was prayed, that the convey-
ance might be set aside as fraudulent and void. The defendants
put in their answers to this bill; and commissions were issued and
testimony collected. All the material particulars of this case are
stated by the Chancellor in delivering his opinion on pronouncing
the final decree.

On the 18th of July 1827 this plaintiff filed another bill here
against these same defendants, reciting the nature and pendency
of the former bill; and alleging, that, since the institution of that
suit, the defendants had been committing great waste, by cutting
large quantities of timber, with a view of removing it from the
land; and by destroying the wood. Whereupon the plaintiff
prayed for an injunction commanding the defendants not to commit
further waste by cutting, or removing from the lands any tim-
ber; or by destroying the wood; and, not to do any act that
might be in any wise prejudicial to the inheritance; and for
general relief. Which injunction was granted as prayed. The
defendants put in an answer to this bill, in which they averred,
that the conveyance was made for a good and valuable considera-
tion; and in short denied the plaintiff's title, and all the material
facts upon which his equity rested; and thereupon gave notice of
a motion to dissolve.

1st October, 1827.—BLAND, Chancellor.—The motion to dissolve
the injunction standing ready for hearing, the solicitors of the par-
ties were heard and the proceedings read and considered.

It has been urged, in support of this motion, that this was not
merely and properly a case of waste, but an injunction, in restraint
of trespass, granted at the instance of a plaintiff who claimed title;
which title had been directly and positively denied by the defend-
ants. And that according to the well established law of this court,
as deduced from the English authorities, no such injunction could
be granted or continued where the title of the plaintiff, as in this
instance, was admitted to be in dispute, or was altogether denied
by the defendant in his answer. This objection is certainly well
founded upon the principles of the English law; but it is otherwise
according to the law of Maryland.