DUVALL v. WATERS. 573

the life estate of B continued. But the intervening life estate only
suspended the remedy; for, after its termination, the reversioner,
or remainderman might then bring his action against A for the
waste done before that time.(d) Nor could any one maintain this
action unless he had the estate of inheritance in him at the time
the waste was committed; nor could it be sustained against an
executor, for waste committed by his testator, it being a wrong
which died with the person; nor could one coparcener bring an
action of waste against another; although one joint tenant or tenant
in common might have a writ of waste against his cotenant, com-
pelling him either to make partition, and take the place wasted as
his own share, or to give security not to commit any further waste.(e)
At the common law there was no process by which a threatened
trespass upon a real estate, however great or irreparable, could be
prevented. After the act was done the injured owner might bring
his action of trespass against the wrongdoer, and recover satisfac-
tion in damages; but, the common law gave him no means of pre-
venting the execution* of the designs and threats of any one, whose
declared and settled purpose was to commit a trespass upon his
lands. If however the claimant was not in possession, and he
thought proper to bring an action to establish his right, and recover
the estate; then, and in aid of such suit, and to prevent any injury
from being done to the property, pending the controversy, the
common law gave the writ of estrepement.(f) It would seem,
that originally this writ could only be used as an aid to a real action
for the recovery of the land itself; but, its scope having been
extended by statute, it was afterwards used in connexion with
actions in which no land was demanded, as in actions of waste,
trespass, &c. It was not, however, allowed to be associated with
a suit for partition; because the tenants, being both of them in
possession, there was no reason why one should be restrained and
not the other. A writ of estrepement might be sued out at the
same time, and together with the original writ, commencing the
action; and that too, in those cases where damages for waste done,
pending the action, might be recovered; because it was injurious
to the commonwealth that waste should be done, and peradventee
he who committed it might not be able to satisfy the plaintiff his
fall damages.(g)

(d) Co. Litt. 53; Clifton's Case, 5 Co. 76.~~(e) 2 Inst 302,305, 403; 3 Blac
Com. 227.-~(/) Jacob, L. Die. verb. Estrepement.—(g) 2 last. 828.

«