572 DUVALL v. WATERS.

In general waste is the abuse, or destructive use of property by
him who has not an absolute unqualified title. And in general
trespass is an injury, or use, without authority, of the property of
another, by one who has no right whatever.

At common law, if the owner of the inheritance had good rea-
ton to believe, that a tenant in dower, or by the courtesy, or a
guardian designed to commit waste, he might, before any waste was
done, have a prohibition directed to the sheriff, commanding him to
prevent it from being done; and in execution of this writ of pro-
hibition, the sheriff might, if necessary, call to his aid the posse
comitatus. This writ was extended, by a statute passed in the
year 1267, to tenants for life and for years: and afterwards, in
1285, it was taken away, and another form of writ given in its
place; but when the court of chancery first granted injunctions, it
Seems to have taken its jurisdiction from this writ of prohibition
of waste.(b)

After waste had been actually committed, the ancient corrective
remedy, in a court of common law, was by a writ of waste, for the
recovery of the place wasted and treble damages, as a compensa-
tion for the injury done to the inheritance.(c) There were, how-
ever, several cases to which the writ of waste did not extend; and
as to such cases, the party was left without any remedy at common
law. The action of waste could only have been brought by him
who had the immediate reversion or remainder, to the disinherit-
ance of whom the waste was always alleged to have been com-
mitted; and therefore, if a lease had been made to A for life or
years, remainder to B for life; and A committed waste, the action
could not be brought by him, in reversion or remainder, so long as

"heavy penalty, made recoverable in the colonial courts of Vice Admiralty, without a
trial by jury. The claims of right to these trees, and the execution of the laws for
their preservation, produced much irritation among the colonists; insomuch so, that
the controversies respecting them, in those colonies to which the statutory prohibition
of felling them extended, may be considered as some among the minor causes of the
revolution.—9 Anne, c. 17; 8 Geo. 1, c. 12; 2 Geo. 2. c. 35; I Chal. Opin. Em.
Law, 111, 116, 119, 137; 2 Hutch. His. Mass. 228; 2 Belk, N. Hamp. 28, 89, 128;
Michaux's Sylva, art. White Pine.—Since the revolution Congress have deemed it
(expedient to make similar reservations of the Live 0ak, and Red Cedar, growing on
the public lands, for the use of the navy.—1st March, 1817, ch. 22; 2d March, 1831,
ch 65.

(5) Co. Litt. 53; 2 Inst. 209, 389; 52 Hen. 3, c. 23; 13 Edw. 1, c. 14; Kilt.
Rep. 209, 212; Jefferson v. Bishop of Durham, 1 Bos. & Pul. 108,121; Goodeson
v. Gallatin. Dick. 455.—(c) Co. Litt. 53; 2 Inst. 300.