DUVALL v. WATERS. 585

fete of that suit, and cannot be dissolved upon an answer, in any
way, denying the plaintiff's title, until that suit has been fully
determined in favour of the defendant. Like an estrepement,
its restrictions do not extend to an inhibition of any ordinary
use of the land by the occupying tenant; for he is allowed to
cultivate it as usual, and to take wood for fuel, repairing of houses,
for fencing and the like, so he does no waste or destruction to the
inheritance.

It must, however, be recollected, that there is no instance of this
court's ever having interposed by an injunction to prevent a mere
trespass, not instant and irreparable where no suit had been instituted,
here or in a court of common law, involving the title; for, against
the granting of such an injunction, which does not operate as an
auxiliary to a suit to try the right, the same reasons apply here as
in England. It does not fall within the jurisdiction of a court of
equity to try the validity of mere legal titles; for all such purposes
recourse must be had to the ordinary tribunals of the common law.
A person can only come here to obtain the interposition of the
conservative powers of this court in cases where the common law
remedies are inadequate or to which they do not at all apply. If
the plaintiff's title is denied, and he acquiesces in the denial by
refusing to bring an action at law to have it authenticated and sus-
tained, he can have no ground .to ask any relief of this court,
founded on a claim which he himself thus shrinks from having
judicially investigated, or put into a course of being legally
established.

In conclusion I deem it proper to remark, that this mode of
applying for this injunction by a separate bill, was irregular and
improper; it should have been asked for by a petition, filed in this
case, without praying for a subpoena to bring in defendants who
were already before the court. The urgency of the case may be some
excuse for the irregularity; but I shall in all cases as far as practi-
cable require parties to pursue the regular and proper course, (q) In
his instance, however, the injunction seems to have been extended
rather beyond the bounds of the case presented by the bill itself;
as to so much therefore it will be dissolved, or rather circumscribed
within its proper limits.

(g) Eden. Inj. 209, Anonymous, 1 Ves. jun. 93; Calvert v. Gason, 2 Scho. &
Lefr. 561; Coale v. Garretson, ante 581, note.

74