rJGHT OF REVERSIONER TO PREVENT WASTE. 309 



And 2^cr Maule J. : " Kinhjside v. Thornton (which was expressly recog- 

 nized in Miislcett v. Hill) shows that if waste be committed, the lessor 

 may maintain an action on the case for it, and that it is no answer for 

 the lessee to say that covenant also may be maintained. That case shows 

 that the lessor may have either remedy. The authorities which are said 

 to have shaken that case seem to me to have nothing to do with the 

 matter. All they decide is, that where there is a contract under seal, 

 you cannot sue in respect of the same contract, as upon a contract not 

 under seal" {Marlcer v. Kenrick). An action of waste for not using 

 a farm in a tenant-like manner, is not within the meaning of 46 Geo. 

 III. c. 66— Isle of Wight Court of Requests Act— ( PF/Ztom v. Unj). 



Where a declaration states a charge of volimtary waste, evidence of a per- 

 missive waste is not admissible {Martin v. Gilham). The reversioner or 

 remainderman may apply to Chancery to restrain the tenant in posses- 

 sion from w-aste, in all cases where it is punishable by law, and an in- 

 junction will be granted before the bill is filed. An injunction will be 

 granted on an affidavit of waste to be committed by a tenant for life 

 or years, or to inhibit meadow or other pasture not ploughed within 

 20 years being ploughed, but not against a lessee who agreed to pay 

 20s. an acre per annum increase of rent if he ploughed a meadow ; or 

 to inhibit ancient enclosures being thrown down (Com. Dig. Chan. 

 D 11). The Court of Chancery will anrrrd a ])erpetual i?ijimctian to 

 restrain waste hi/ ploughing, hwrning, hreahing, or sowing of Down lands, 

 the effect of whicli, though it might be a present advantage to the ap- 

 pellant for his short term of years, would be a total destruction of all 

 future benefit to arise from the Down, and for want of foldage for the 

 shepp, would greatly damage and impoverish the arable part of the farm 

 (4 Bro. Par. Cases, 377). An injunction has been granted where a 

 tenant ploughed up a bowling green (2 Brown's Chan. E.ep. 64), and 

 also to prevent the land l^eing sown with mustard-seed, or with any 

 other pernicious crop {Pratt v. Brett), among which flax may perhaps 

 be included (Savage v. Connor). 



On a writ of waste for ploughing ancient meadow,, the defendant was 

 not allowed under the general issue, nul wast, to give evidence that the 

 ploughing was resorted to according to the custom of the country, for 

 the purpose of ameliorating the meadow, and it was held by the Court 

 of Queen's Bench, that if such matter were a defence at all, it must be 

 pleaded specially {Simmons v. Norton). And jjcr Curiam .• " It is only 

 where the waste happens by the hand of God, or the like (as if the sur- 

 face of the meadow had been destroyed by the eruption of a moss, or 

 enemies had landed and dug it up), that the general issue is the proper 

 plea. The general principle is clearly laid down in Barrett v. Barrett; 



