580 DUVALL v. WATERS.

cise of his right of property. But on the other hand, if it should
be eventually shewn, that the plaintiff had the title, then, as the
injunction turns no one out of possession, nor displaces any thing,
it must necessarily leave to the defendant the advantage of fighting
the plaintiff with his own property. Upon which, had not the
injunction been granted, the most irretrievable destruction might
have been perpetrated; acts of waste might have been committed
which would deprive the plaintiff of the very substance of his
inheritance; mischief might have been done which it would
require years to repair; and things might have been torn away or
destroyed which it would be difficult or impossible to restore in
kind; such as the buildings, fixtures, trees, or other peculiarities
about the estate, which a multitude of associated recollections had
rendered precious to their owner; but, as a compensation for the
loss of which a jury would not give one cent beyond their mere
value. A man has a right to secure to himself a property even in
his amusements; and, it is not fit in any such cases to cast it to
the estimation of people, who may have not the least sympathy
with the feelings of the owner, to set a value upon his privileges
or his property.(j)

The High Court of Chancery of Maryland has from the begin-
ning, or certainly for a great length of time past, in this respect,
acted more in harmony with its general principles, than the Court
of Chancery of England, by interposing to prevent waste and
destruction in all cases, during the continuance of a suit in which
the title to the property has been, or may be brought in question; as
well where the subject of litigation was real estate, as where it
was mere perishable personalty, or money, or choses in action in
the hands of the defendant. A similar and equally extensive
application of the writ of injunction to stay waste, appears to have
been made by the courts of chancery of Virginia and South Caro-
lina.(k) As I have before observed, there is sufficient evidence of
the writ of estrepement having been at one time often resorted to in
this State; although it has now fallen into total disuse. But even
that writ must have been a very tardy and inadequate remedy

(j) Pells v. Read, 3 Ves. 70; Smith v. Collyer, 8 Ves. 89; Berkely v. Brymer,
f Ves. 356; Lady Arundell «. Phipps, 10 Yes. 148; Courthope v. Mapplesden,
10 Ves. 291; Lowther v. Lord Lowther, 13 Ves. 95; Crockford v. Alexander, 15 Ves.
138; Earl Cowper v. Baker, 17 Ves. 128; Astley v. Welden, 2 Bos. & Pul. 351;
Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & Bea. 349.—(fe) Harris v. Thomas, 1 Hen. &, Mun. 18;
Shubrick v. Guerard, 2 Desau. 616.