578 DUVALL v. WATERS,

panted if the contract be stated and admitted. For if the bill
states and admits, that the defendant asserts and relies upon what
he alleges to be a valid adverse title in himself, the plaintiff thereby
states himself out of court, or if the defendant in his answer posi-
tively denies the plaintiff's title, the injunction will be refused; or
having been granted will, on the coming in of such an answer, be
dissolved.(z)

It is said, however, in one of the most respectable treatises on
pleadings in chancery, that, " pending an ejectment in a court of
common law, a court of equity will restrain the tenant in posses-
sion from committing waste, by felling timber, ploughing ancient
meadow, or otherwise. Against this inconvenience a remedy at
the common law was in many cases provided during the pendency
of a real action, by the writ of estrepement; and when the proceed-
ing by ejectment became the usual mode of trying a title to land,
as the writ of estrepement did not apply to the case, the courts of
equity, proceeding on the same principles, supplied the defect."(a)
But the only authorities cited in support of what is here said are
cases between landlord and tenant, where the title of the plaintiff
had not been, and could not be denied by the defendant who con-
fessedly held only as tenent.(6) Whence it is evident, that there
can be no means of preventing waste from being done upon real
estate, in England, pending a suit to determine the title, other
than the writ of estrepement; and that writ, it is said, has fallen
into disuse, (c)

But in a variety of other cases the English Court of Chancery
is in the habit of exercising its preventive and conservative powers
for the express purpose of preserving the subject of litigation from
waste, injury, or total loss, pending the controversy.

In cases of patent rights, where the plaintiff is in possession of
the invention, under colour of title, an injunction may be granted
pending the proceedings at law to try the right, (d) And so, too,
where the plaintiff claims the copy-right of a book, an injunction
may be granted to prevent publication, during the continuance of
a suit at law. In cases of copy-right the jurisdiction is assumed
merely for the purpose of making the legal right effectual, which

(z) Pillsworth v. Hopton,6 Ves. 51; Smith v. Gollyer, 8 Ves. 89; Norway v.
Rowe, 19 Ves. 147.—(a) Mitf. Plea. 136.—(fr) Lathropp v. Marsh, 5 Ves. 259;
Pulteney v. Shelton, 5 Ves. 260, note , Onslow v. ———, 16 Ves. 173.-—(c) 3 Blac*
Com. 227; Calvert v. Gason, 2 Scho. & Lefr 561.—(d) The Universities of Ox
& Cam. v. Richardson, 6 Ves. 689.