576 DUVALL v. WATERS.

limited to a given set of technical forms of proceeding. Hence it
is, that the remedy has been so constantly, in modern times, sought
in the court of chancery, which is always open, constantly accessi-
ble, and is capable of moving with an energy and despatch called
for by the emergency, and suited to the peculiar nature of the
case.

In general an injunction may be obtained, in this State as in
England, to stay waste in all cases where an action of waste would
lie at common law, whether there be any privity of title or not ;(l)
and in a variety of others in which no such action could be brought,
even where there was a subsisting privity of title or contract
between the parties. A mere threat to commit waste is a sufficient
foundation for an injunction before any waste has been actually
done.(m) And an injunction may be granted where no account
of damages could be claimed; or where the waste done is so insig-
nificant that there could be no recovery of damages at law.(n) It
may be granted in favour of a child en venire sa mere ;(o) in favour
of trustees to preserve a contingent remainder, before the contin-
gent remainderman has come in esse ;(p) in favour of any one
entitled to a contingent or executory estate of inheritance ;(o;) and
in favour of a remainderman or reversioner, where there is an
intervening estate for life.(r) An injunction may be obtained, in
respect of equitable waste, against a tenant in tail after possibility
of issue extinct ;(s) against a tenant for life without impeachment of
waste ;(t) and against a mortgagor or mortgagee in possession.(w)
An injunction may be granted as between tenants in common,
joint tenants, and coparceners, against malicious destruction, or
when the tenant committing the waste is insolvent, or is occupy-
ing tenant to the plaintiff.(v) And so too, where some of the
heirs had filed their bill in this court against the rest to obtain a
partition according to the act to direct descents, and one of the
heirs, who was in possession, was committing waste; upon a

(I) The Mayor & Com. Norwich v. Johnson, 3 Mod. 90; S. C. 2 Show. 457.
(m) Gibson v. Smith, 2 Atk. 183; Hannay v. McEntire, 11 Ves. 54; Coffin v. Cof-
fin, Jacob. 70.—(n) The Universities of Ox. & Cam. v. Richardson, B Ves. 706; The
Keepers, &c. of Harrow School v. Alderton, 2 Bos. & Pul. 86.—(o) Robinson v.
Litton, 8 Atk. 211.—(p) Garth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. V54.—(g) Bewick v. Whitfield,
8 P. Will. 268, note; Hayward v. Stillingfleet, 1 Atk. 422.—(r) Bewick v. Whit-
field, 3 P. Will, 268, note; Farrant v. Lovel, 3 Atk. 723.—(s) Abraham v. Bubb,
2 Freem. 53.—(t) Lord Bernard's Case, Prec. Chan. 454.—(u) Farrant v. Lovel,
3 Atk. 723; Humphreys v. Harrison, 1 Jac. &, Walk. 561.—(v) Smallman v. Onions,
3 Bro. C. C. 621; Hole v. Thomas, 7 Ves. 589; Twort v. Twoit, 16 Ves. 128.