HILL v. BOWIE. 593

HILL v. BOWIE.

An injunction to stay waste pending an action at law is in nature of a writ of estrepe-
ment. The restriction of such an injunction should in its commencement be
coextensive with the plaintiff's pretensions as set forth here or in his suit at law.
But after the suit, which had been instituted here or at law to try the right, has
been determined, then, according to the nature of that determination, the injunc-
tion may be altogether dissolved, or be made perpetual only to the extent to which
the plaintiff has recovered.

This bill was filed on the 14th of December 1826, by Morgan
Hill against Daniel Bowie. It states that the plaintiff was in pos-
session of a part of a tract of land called Grammar's Chance, to
which he had a good title in fee simple; that the defendant had
committed waste upon it by cutting down timber trees; and that
he, this plaintiff, had brought an action of quare clausum fregit
against the defendant to try the title to the land; which action was
then depending. Whereupon the plaintiff prayed for an injunction
to stay waste, &c. An injunction was granted as prayed.

The defendant put in his answer, in which he admitted, that the
plaintiff was entitled to a certain part of the tract of land as stated;
but he averred, that a part of the same tract of land belonged to
his, the defendant's wife, the boundaries of which part had been
well ascertained; and the defendant denied, that he had committed
any waste as charged by the bill.

On the 11th of September 1828 the plaintiff filed a supplemen-
tal bill in which he alleged, that he had obtained a verdict and
judgment in his action of trespass; and thereupon prayed, that
the injunction might be made perpetual.

The defendant, by his answer to this supplemental bill, admitted,
that the plaintiff had recovered a judgment as stated; but averred,
that although by the verdict it had been ascertained, that a part of
the land, on which it appeared the defendant had trespassed, was
the property of the plaintiff; yet it had not ascertained the claim
and pretensions of the plaintiff to be *as extensive as in his bill he
had supposed.

25th February, 1829.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case having
been submitted on bill and answer, the proceedings were read and
considered.

An injunction of this description is in the nature, and in afl
respects performs the office of the ancient writ of estrepement. It

75