59 



of the writ, l mere apprehension 2 on the part of the 

 complainant that waste will be permitted, without satis- 

 factory proof that it may reasonably be expected, will not 

 be accepted by the courts as ground for an injunction. 

 Injunction will be refused if the acts complained of are 

 trivial or amount only to meliorating waste, 3 and the ap- 

 plication must allege facts showing that further acts of 

 waste may reasonably be apprehended. 4 



63. An Equity Court may even Redress Past In- 

 juries after its Jurisdiction Attaches. Equity will 

 ordinarily interfere only to prevent future waste, and only 

 under special circumstances will cognizance be taken of 

 waste already committed. This is upon the theory that 

 the complainant has an adequate remedy in law for the 

 waste already committed. However, where an equity 

 court entertains the request for an injunction to prevent 

 future waste it may also decree an account and satisfaction 

 for waste already committed in order to prevent a multi- 

 plicity of suits 5 provided there exists a right in equity 



1. Ala. Lyon v. Hunt, 11 Ala. 295, 46 Am. Dec. 216. 

 Ga. Dickinson v. Jones, 36 Ga. 97. 



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



Ind. White Water Valley Canal Co. v. Comegys, 2 Ind. 469. 



Ky. Loudon v. Warfleld, 5 J. J. Marsh 196; Calvert v. Rice, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 



1001, 12 K. L. Rep. 252. 



Md. Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland. Md. 569, 18 Am. Dec. 350. 

 Mich. Duncombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332, 45 N. W. 1004. 

 Neb. Hayman v. Rownd, 82 Neb. 598, 118 N. W. 328. 

 Ore. Sheridan v. McMullen, 12 Ore. 150. 

 Wash. Arment v. Hensel, 5 Wash. 152, 31 Pac. 464. 

 Wis. Poertner v. Russell, 33 Wis. 193. 

 U. S. Poor v. Carleton, 3 Summ. 70. 

 Eng. Gibson v. Smith, 3 Ath. 182, 26 Eng. Reprint 514; Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. 



Jr. 688, 31 Eng. Reprint 806. 



2. Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Campbell v. Allgood, 17 Beav. 623, 51 Eng. 



Reprint 1177. 



3. Butts v. Fox, 107 Mo. App. 370, 81 S. W. 493; Brown v. Niles, 165 Mass. 276, 43 



N. E. 90; Hubble v. Cole, 85 Va. 87, 7 S. E. 242; Barry v. Barry, 1 Jac. & W 

 651, 37 Eng. Reprint 510; Meux v. Cobley (1892) 2 Ch. 253; Doherty v. Allnvm, 

 3 App. Cases 709; Grand Canal Co. v. McNamee, 29 L. R. Ir. 131; But see 

 Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland. (Md.) 569, 18 Am. Dec. 350; Cf. People v. Mar- 

 quette Co., Cir. Judge, 38 Mich. 244. 



4. Green v. Keen, 4 Md. 98; Rodgers v. Rodgers, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 595; Perkins v. 



Collins, 3 N. J. Eq. 482; Leavenworth v. Plunkett, 7 La. 341; Crockett v. 

 Crockett, 2 Ohio St. 180; St. Clair v. Sedgwick, 39 Neb. 562, 58 N. W. 185; 

 Jackson v. Cator, 5 Ves. Jr. 688; Hext v. Gill, 7 Ch. App. 699; Bewes, Waste, 

 340. 



5. Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 262; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 259; Fleming 



v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230; Ackerman v. Hartley, 8 N. J. Eq. (4 Halst) 476; Arm- 

 strong v. Wilson, 60 111. 226; Williamson v. Jones, 43 W. Va. 562, 27 S. E. 411; 

 Disher v. Disher, 45 Neb. 100, 63 N. W. 368, under code. 



