60 REMEDIES FOR WASTE 



to relief for the waste already committed which is 

 independent of the ground upon which the applicant is 

 entitled to an injunction to restrain future waste. Relief 

 for waste already committed cannot be granted in equity 

 if the injunction is refused, 1 except in a case involving 

 equitable waste where the relief as to past injury rests upon 

 the ground that there is no adequate remedy in law for such 

 injury. An injunction will even be granted against waste 

 by a co-tenant when necessary to prevent irreparable in- 

 jury to the common property, especially upon a showing 

 that the wrong doer is insolvent. - 



64. Injunctions regarding Timber. The cutting of 

 timber will ordinarily be considered such a destruction of 

 the inheritance as to justify the granting of an injunction. 3 



1. Jesus College v. Bloom, 3 Atk. 263; Smith v. Cooke, 3 Atk. 378; Gent v. Harrison, 



Johns 517; Parrott v. Palmer, 3 Mylne & K. 632; Crockett v. Crockett, 2 Ohio 

 St. 180; Winship v. Pitts, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 259. 



2. See Real Prop., Tiffany, Sec. 257, Note 274, p. 580; Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, Vol. 



30, p. 294. 



3. Ala. Thomas v. James, 32 Ala. 723. 



Cal. Halleck v. Mixer, 16 Cal. 574; Natoma Water etc. Co. v. Clarkin, 14 Cal. 



574. 



Fruit Tree 5: Silva v. Garcia, 65 Cal. 591, 4 Pac. 628. 

 Del. Fleming v. Collins, 2 Del. Ch. 230. 



Ga. Enterprise Lumber Co. v. Clegg, 117 Ga. 901, 45 S. E. 281; Jones v. Gam- 

 mon, 123 Ga. 47, 50 S. E. 982; Powell v. Cheshire, '70 Ga. 357, 48 Am. 



Rep. 572; Camp v. Dixon, 38 S. E. 71. 

 Ind. Thatcher v. Humble, 67 Ind. 444; Owens v. Lewis, 46 Ind. 488, 15 Am. 



Rep. 295. 



Iowa. Palmer v. Butler, 36 Iowa 583. 



Ky. Peak v. Hayden, 3 Bush. 125; McDowell v. Wiseman, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 332. 

 La. De la Croix v. Villere, 11 La. Ann. 39. 

 Md. Fulton v. Harman, 44 Md. 251 ; Shipley v. Ritter, 7 Md. 408, 61 Am. Dec. 



371. 



Mich. Collins v. Rea, 86 N. W. 811 (In favor of mortgagee.) 

 Minn. But man v. James, 34 Minn. 547. 

 Mo. Powell v. Canady, 95 Mo. App. 713, 69 S. W. 686; Palmer v. Crisle, 92 Mo. 



App. 510. 

 N. J. Piper v. Piper, 38 N. J. Eq. 81; Chenango Bank v. Cox, 26 N. J. Eq. 452; 



Shreeve v. Black, 4 N. J. Eq. 177; but see Kerlin v. West, 4 N. J. Eq. 449. 

 N. Y. Relyea v. Beaver, 34 Barb. 547; Kidd v. Dennison, 6 Barb. 9; Herring v. 



Dean of St. Pauls, 2 Wils. Ch. 1. 

 Pa. Smith's Appeal, 69 Pa. St. 474; Kerns v. Harbison, 1 Chest. Co. Rep. 506; 



Echert v. Ferst, 10 Phila. 514. 

 S. C. Shubrick v. Guerard, 2 Desauss, Eq. 616. 

 Vt. Smith v. Rock, 59 Vt. 232, 9 Atl. 551 ; Smith v. Pettingil, 15 Vt. 82, 40 Am. 



Dec. 667. 

 Va. Bruce v. John L. Roper Lbr. Co., 87 Va. 381, 13 S. E. 153, 24 Am. St. Rep. 



657. 



Wash. Arment v. Hensel, 5 Wash. 152, 31 Pac. 464; Colwell v. Smith, 1 W. T. 92. 

 W. Va.Fluharty v. Mills, 49 W. Va. 446, 38 S. E. 521. 

 Wis. Bunker v. Locke, 15 Wis. 636. 

 U. S. King v. Campbell, 85 Fed. 814; King v. Stuart, 84 Fed. 546; U. S. v. Gug- 



lard, 79 Fed. 21; Wood v. Braxton, 54 Fed. 1005. 

 (Footnote 3 continued on next page) 



