INJUNCTION TO PREVENT WASTE 57 



held that a general statute for an accounting may not be 

 applicable in a case of waste between co-tenants. l 



61. The Use of Injunction for the Prevention of 

 Waste. As a remedy for waste injunction has not only 

 generally taken the place of the writ of estrepement and 

 the common law action of waste, but it has also to a large 

 extent superseded the common law action on the case for 

 damages. 2 The use of the remedy is no longer confined to 

 cases founded on privity of title. 3 and will be granted 

 against a trespasser 4 where irreparable injury is threatened. 

 Even though a statute gives a remedy at law injunction 

 may be used if the legal remedy is not adequate. 5 



Where there is privity of title it is probably unnecessary 

 for the applicant to show irreparable injury to the inheri- 

 tance or insolvency of the tenant to entitle him to the 

 remedy of injunction, but if the parties are stangers or 

 claim adversely mo^t courts require a very clear showing 

 that the injury will be irreparable 6 and that there is not 

 an adequate remedy at law. 7 If upon the facts stated in 

 the application for an injunction the applicant has an ade- 



1. Cecil v. Clark, 47 W. Va. 402, 35 8. E. 11, 81 Am. St. Rep. 802. 



See Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co. (Ky.) 64 8. W. 652 (Tenant in common can coa- 

 vey nothing less than full undivided interest; action in equity) Sullivan v. 

 Sherry, (Wis.) 87 N. W. 471 (Cutting of timber by licensee of cotenant such 

 ouster as to justify trespass or trover.) 



2. Georges Creek Coal etc. Co. v. Detmold, 1 Md. Ch. 371 ; Poertner v. Russell, 33 



Wis. 193. 



3. Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357, 48 Am. Rep. 572; Attaquin v. Fish, 5 Mete. (Mass.) 



140; Leighton v. Leighton, 32 Me. 399; Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland. 569, 18 Am. 

 Dec. 350; Kane v. Vanderburgh, 1 Johns Ch. 11; Garth v. Cotton, 3 Atk. 751, 

 26 Eng. Reprint 1231, 1 Ves. 524, 546; 27 Eng. Reprint 1182, 1196. 



4. Del. Fleming v. Co.lins, 2 Del. Ch. 230. 



Ga. Bingham v. Over-street, 128 Ga. 447, 57 S. E. 484, 10 L. R. A. N. S. 452, 



11 Ann. Cas. 75; Markham v. Howell, 33 Ga. 508; Smith v. City of Rome, 



19 Ga. 89, 63 Am. Dec. 298. 

 111. Palmer v. Young, 108 111. App. 252. 



Md. Georges Creek Coal etc. Co. v. Detmold, 1 Md. Ch. 371 . 

 N. J. Scudder v. Trenton Delaware Falls Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694, 23 Am. Dec. 756. 

 N. Y. Rodgers v. Rodgers, 11 Barb. 595; Stevens v. Beckman, 1 Johns Ch. 318; 



People v. Alberty, 11 Wend. 160; Kane v. Vanderburgh, 1 Johns 11. 

 S. C. Crawford v. Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp., 77 S. C. 81, 57 S. E. 670. 

 Eng. Hanson v. Gardiner, 7 Ves. Jr. 305, 32 Eng. Reprint 125; Mitchell v. Dors, 



6 Ves. Jr., 147, 31 Eng. Reprint 984- Courthope v. Mapplesden, 10 Ves. 



Jr. 290, 32 Eng. Reprint 856. 



5. Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332, 45 N. W. 1004; Harris v. Thomas, 1 Hen. & M. 



(Va.) 18. ^ 

 C. Timber case, Green v. Keen, 4 Md. 98; Cf. Atkins v. Chilson, 48 Mass. (7 Mete.) 



398, 41 Am. Dec. 448. 

 7. Brown v. Niles, 165 Mass. 2 6, 43 N. E. 90; Cutting v. Carter, 4 Hen. & M 



.Va.) 24. 



