DUVALL v. WATERS, 581

compared with an injunction; which is the only judicial proceed-
ing, that seems to be, in all respects, capable, by its promptness
and vigor, of preventing irreparable mischief from being done to
real estate pending the litigation, by a provoked and desperate
defendant.

When this mode of interposing by injunction to stay waste,
pending an action at law or a bill in chancery, was first allowed
by this court, I have not been able distinctly to ascertain; but it is
evident, that it had been considered as a settled course of proceed-
ing under the Provincial Government; for upon an information in
chancery, filed on the 13th of April, 1775, by the Attorney General,
at the relation of Josias Bowen, against Nicholas Norwood, to
vacate a patent grant for a tract of land, it was alleged, that the
defendant in possession was committing great waste; to stay which
an injunction was asked and immediately granted until the final
hearing. (1) I have seen a case of this kind, in which, in the year

*(l) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NORWOOD.—This was an information filed in the
High Court of Chancery, on the 13th of April, 1775, at the relation of Josias Bowen
to vacate a patent which had been obtained by the father of the defendants, for a
tract of land, which the relator had previously caused to be surveyed; but was pre-
vented from obtaining a patent for it, by the father of the defendants having fraudu-
lently contrived previously to get a patent for the same land.

The information states, that in confidence of his being clearly entitled to a patent,
the relator had brought his action of ejectment against the father of the defendants;
pending which action his certificate was caveated, and the caveat ruled good, by rea-
son of Norwood's producing an elder patent; which patent it is averred he had
fraudulently obtained; that afterwards the relatorJs action of ejectment was non
pros'd with costs; which judgment he superseded; that Norwood, after that, conveyed
the land to his son, this defendant Nicholas Norwood; and, by his will, appointed
his other son, the defendant Edward Norwood, his executor, and died; that Nicholas
Norwood had taken possession of the land, and was committing great waste; and
that Edward Norwood had, by scire facias, revived the judgment for costs in the
action of ejectment, and threatened to sue out execution against the relator.

Upon which the information prayed, that the patent obtained by Norwood might
be vacated, and possession of the land delivered; that Nicholas Norwood might, %
an injunction, be restrained from committing waste, &c.; and that Edward Norwood
might be prohibited from proceeding at law.

The relator made affidavit to the truth of the facts set forth in the information; and
also gave bond to prosecute as in common cases to stay proceedings at law. Upon
which, on the same day, an injunction was granted as prayed.

On the 7th of July, 1785, it was decreed, that the injunction be made perpetual,
that the patent be vacated, and that the possession be delivered.—Chanc. Proc. No. 2,
fol. 211,—This case is in other respects more fully reported in 2 H. & McH. 201

COALE v. GARRETSON.—This bill was filed, on the 15th of February, 1701, by
Richard Coale against Job Garretson. It sets forth all the particulars of the plaintiff's
ease, by which it appears in substance, that on a certificate, bearing date on the 8th
of January, 1773, he had in April, 1775, obtained a patent for a tract of land called