668 INDEX.—1 BLAND.

TRUST AND TRUSTEES.— Continued.
See MESNE PROFITS, 3.
PARTNERSHIP, 3.

UNDUE INFLUENCE.

See NON COMPOS MENTIS.

WASTE.

1. The distinction between waste and trespass as regards the proceed-
ing by injunction. The preventive and corrective common law
remedy for waste. Duvall v. Waters, 534.

2. The writ of estrepement to prevent waste associated with an action
to try the right. 16.

3. Waste is the abuse, or destructive use, of property by him who has
not an absolute, unqualified title, while trespass, in general, is an
injury or use of property by one who has no right whatever. Ib.

4. When any permanent or lasting injury is done by the holder of the
particular estate to the inheritance, or to the prejudice of any one
who has an interest in the inheritance, it is properly called waste.
Ib.

5. An injunction to stay waste may be granted in a variety of cases in
which an action of waste will not lie. And the Court will, in
many cases, exercise a conservative power over property, because of
there being no mode of obtaining adequate relief at law. Ib.

6. In England, if the injunction bill states and admits, that the de-
fendant asserts and relies upon what he alleges to be a valid ad-
verse title in himself, the plaintiff thereby states himself out of
Court; or if the defendant in his answer positively denies the plain-
tiff's title, the injunction will be refused, or, having been granted,
will, on the coming in of such an answer, be dissolved. But in
Maryland, if the plaintiff, by his bill for an injunction, can and does
put the title in issue here; or, if he states, that he has actually
brought an action at law to try the right, he may have an injunc-
tion to stay waste, pending the suit here, or the action at law; and,
such injunction will not be dissolved on the coming in of an answer
which denies the plaintiff's right. If however, after he has filed
such a bill here to try the right, he wishes to obtain an injunc-
tion to stay waste, he should apply for it by petition in the same
case, and not by a separate bill. Ib.

7. An injunction to stay waste, pending a suit, does not restrain the de-
fendant from cultivating, or making any of the ordinary uses of the
land. Ib.

8. A mere threat to commit waste is a sufficient foundation for an injunc-
tion, before any waste has been done. Ib.

9. When the bill is for an injunction to stay further waste, and waste
has been already committed, the Court, to prevent a double suit,
will decree an account for what is past. Ib.

10. But a bill for an account of waste will not lie when an injunction can-
not be asked. Ib.

11. An injunction to stay waste pending an action at law is in nature of a

writ of estrepement. Hill v. Bowie, 556.

12. The restriction of such an injunction should in its commencement be
co-extensive with the plaintiff's pretensions as set forth here or in