584 DUVALL v. WATERS.

too in cases of nuisance, although it is necessary in England, that
the individuals complaining of the injury should have had their
rights first established at law,(o) yet here, where an action or the
proper proceeding has been instituted to try the right, an injunction
may be granted to prevent the repetition or further continuance of
the nuisance until the right has been thus determined at law or in
the regular mode.(p)

The writ of injunction in cases of this kind, to stay waste pend-
ing a suit to try the right, has, in Maryland, taken the place and
performs the office, in all respects, of the ancient writ of estrepe-
ment. It is an injunction not founded on any privity of title or
contract whatever; it is an attendant upon and an auxiliary of the
action at common law, or the suit in this court in which the title
has been or may be drawn in question; it follows and shares the

(o) Mitf. Plea. 144.—(p) Williamson v. Carnan, 1 G. & J. 184.

PASCAULT v. THE COMMISSIONERS OF BALTIMORE.—1st March, 1797.—HANSON,
Chancellor.—The motion to dissolve the injunction in this cause issued, being sub-
mitted, the bill and answers were by the Chancellor read and considered.

When the bill was presented to him for the purpose of obtaining the injunction, it
was not his idea, that this court ought to control the judgment of the commissioners.
It appeared to him, that whenever they exercise their judgment on a subject, over
which the law hath invested them with power, and they determine on an act to
which that power is competent, they cannot with propriety be restrained. It was
not his province to decide, whether or not a street should be paved, or a sewer
repaired, or whether or not the intended act of the commissioners would be beneficial
to a majority of the persons to be affected by the act. But he considered the power
of this court rightfully exercised, on the application of any person, who is apprehen-
sive of injury, in restraining a proceeding not authorized by law. He conceived,
that the power conferred on them by the act of Assembly referred to in the bill does
not extend to the removing a pavement already made, which was not even alleged to
want repairs, and lowering a street for the avowed purpose of changing the course
of waters, against the consent and remonstrance of any individual citizen, whose
property is to be thereby affected. The power conferred on them by the aforesaid
act of Assembly, is to make, amend, repair, pave, and keep clean streets, alleys and
lanes; to make, amend and repair bridges; and amend, and repair sewers; and so
long as they bona fide exercise only that power, they will not be restrained by this
tribunal.

Now supposing the extent of their power to be only doubtful, and that the com-
plainants on bringing suit at law, and shewing, that they have been injured by the
commissioners' completing their intended act, might recover ample damages; it is
certainly better, that an unlawful proceeding be prevented, than that recourse be had
to a court of law, after the injury is done.

The Chancellor's opinion has not been changed by a perusal of the answers. He
regrets, that the point was not argued by the counsel.

It is ordered, that the aforesaid injunction be continued until the final hearing of
the cause, of the further order of this court.