58 EEMEDIES FOR WASTE 



quate remedy at law for the injury which has been or will 

 be suffered an injunction will not be granted. l Although 

 it is not necessary that the complainant be in possession 

 of the premises he must ordinarily be able to show a good 

 title to the premises upon which waste is being committed 

 or as to which it is apprehended. If the defendant is in 

 possession and claiming adversely or the complainant's 

 title is otherwise doubtful, an injunction will not ordi- 

 narily be granted. However, even in such cases it is within 

 -the discretion of the court to intervene if the character of 

 the waste or the irresponsibility of the defendant be such 

 that the complainant will not have an adequate remedy 

 at law. Thus the court will enjoin irreparable injury to the 

 property pending a determination of the title of the com- 

 plainant. 



62. Injunctions are Granted Liberally in Modern 

 Practice. Injunctions to restrain waste have been granted 

 not only where the estate of the injured party is entirely 

 equitable, but even where it is legal if no action at law 

 can be maintained. Threatened acts which are not in- 

 consistent with the legal rights of a tenant but which will 

 manifestly injure the inheritance will be restrained as 

 equitable waste, in modern practice. 2 Proof of one in- 

 stance of substantial waste intentionally committed, 3 

 or of slight waste under conditions clearly indicating an 

 intention 4 on the part of the tenant or trespasser to do 

 more will entitle the complainant to an injunction. Al- 

 though injunction has been granted where waste was threat- 

 ened but none actually committed prior to the issuance 



1. Poindexter v. Henderson, Walk. (Miss.) 176; Cutting v. Carter, 4 Hen. & M. 



(Va.) 424; Lefforge v. West, 2 Ind. 514; See 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 2,s5. 



2. See Stevens v. Rose, 69 Mich. 259; Buncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332; Crove v. Wil- 



son, 65 Md. 479, 57 Am. Rep. 343. 



3. Sarles v. Sarles, 3 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 601 ; Same as to equitable waste. Coffin v. 



Coffin, 6 Madd. 17, 56 Eng. Reprint 995. 



4. Livingston v. Reynolds, 26 Wend. (N.Y.) 115; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 11 Barb. 



(N. Y.) 595; Loudon v. Warfleld, 5 J. J. Marsh (Ky.) 196; Barry v. Barry. 1 

 Jac. & W. 651, 37 Eng. Reprint 516; See Webster v. Peet, 97 Mich. 326, 56 X. W. 

 558. 



