|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WILLIAMS' CASE. 215
rections as to renewal of existing leases until it should be sold.
That the mill, mill-house, and appurtenances were then under lease
at six hundred dollars per annum, subject to the cost of necessary
repairs, to expire on the first day of August then next, and which
the then tenant was desirous to continue for another year. That
the ferry and ferryman's house, and blacksmith's shop were under
lease to the then tenant for one year from the fourth of May then
last, at one hundred and-thirty dollars; that the farm, being the
residue and bulk of the estate, and embracing all the arable land,
was under lease to Daniel Hughes, for one year, from the first of
April then last, at a rent of eight hundred dollars, subject to ne-
cessary repairs. In addition, the trustee suggested the necessity
of some authority to make such repairs of enclosures as had been
injured or swept away by inundations of the Monocacy river;
and the necessity of renewing the lease of the farm some months
before the termination of the lease; and for further directions and
orders in the premises.
29th July, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—There seems to be no
doubt, where the property in litigation, or its profits are in dan-
ger of being materially injured or lost, that this court has the power
to interpose for the purpose of preventing its waste or destruction,
It is upon this ground, that it grants an injunction to stay waste
pending the prosecution of an action of ejectment, or any other
suit to try the right, (d) And in other cases grants an injunction
or appoints a receiver to save the property in controversy from in-
jury or loss, (e) Upon the same principles, where a real estate
had been decreed to be sold, and the trustee appointed to make
the sale, reported on oath, before he had made sale of it, that the
occupying tenant, or others, were committing, or were about to
commit waste, an injunction was granted to prevent it; (f) be-
cause a decree for a sale to effect a partition or to pay debts vir-
tually takes possession of the estate and vests it in the court for the
purpose of distribution, (g) And so where the property taken
under a sequestration was of a perishable nature, and was then
likely soon to go to decay, it was ordered to be sold, for the bene-
fit of all concerned, to prevent a total loss, (h)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(d) Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland, 569.—(e) King v. King, 6 Ves. 172; Atkinson v.
Henshaw, 2 Ves. & Bea. 85; Ball v. Oliver, 2 Ves. & Bea. 96; Beam's PI. Eq. 71.—
(f) Clark v. Clark, 24 January, 1822, per JOHNSON, Chancellor.—(g) Shewen v.
Vanderhorst, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 461.—(h) Wilcocks v. Wilcocks, Amb. 421;
Mitchell v. Draper, 9 Ves. 208.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
