DUYALL v. WATERS. 577

representation of the fact, by the trustee appointed to make
sale of the lands for the purpose of effecting a partition, he was
restrained by injunction.(to) When the bill is for an injunction
to stay further waste, and waste has been already committed, the
court to prevent a double suit, will decree an account and satis-
faction for what is past, and not oblige the plaintiff to bring an
action at law as well as a bill in equity; but such decree for
the past is only given as an incident to the injunction, to obtain
which the plaintiff was under a necessity of coming into chan-
cery: and, consequently, it may be regarded as a general rule, to
which there are few exceptions, that when no injunction is, or can
be asked for or granted, a bill to have an account of past waste,
and nothing more, cannot be sustained, the proper remedy being
at law.(x)

It appears, that the English Court of Chancery had steadily
confined itself in granting relief against waste, to those cases
only where there was some subsisting privity of title or contract
between the parties, until about the year 1785; since which time it
has gone one step further, and granted injunctions against strangers
to stay trespass, in strong cases of destruction or irreparable mis-
chief; or where the irreparable mischief might be completely ef-
fected before any trial could be had as to the controverted right.
But, at that point, it seems to have come to a stand; not, however,
without expressing a regret, that its jurisdiction had not been
extended so far as to protect real estate from waste and injury
pending a controversy about the title. I have seen no reason to
doubt, that the powers of this court in granting injunctions have
been always considered as in all respects co-extensive with those
of the chancery court of England, (y)

It appears to be even yet the fixed rule of the Court of Chan-
cery of England, that the granting of an injunction to stay waste
must depend, either upon the fact of there being a privity of title
or contract acknowledged by the answer; or an unquestionable
legal or equitable title in the plaintiff; as where a purchaser files
a bill for specific performance of his contract, suggesting, that the
defendant was proceeding to cut timber, &c., an injunction may be

(w) Clarke v. Clarke, MS., 24th January, 1822.—-(x) Jesus College v. Bloom, 3

Atk. 262; Eden. Inj. 146.—(y) Pillsworth v. Hopton, 6 Ves. 51; Mitchell v. Dors,

6 Ves. 147; Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. 305 % Smith v. Collyer, 8 Ves. 89, Courthope

v. Mapplesden, 10 Ves. 290; Crockford v. Alexander, 15 Ves. 138; Norway v, Rowe,

• 19 Ves. 147; Jones v. Jones, 3 Meriv. 173.

73

*