the plaintiffs keep up fufficient number of ferry-boats. 1 Vef. 476. June 1750. Anon.

11. Injunction granted against stopping up ancient lights till the right be tried at law, and ordered the fcaffold and boards to be pulled down. 1 Vef. 543. August 1750. Ryder v. Bentham. 12. Injunction to re-erect a nuifance denied. 2 Vef. 193. Feb. 1750. Anon.

13. Injunction to stay building must be on stopping ancient lights, for which there is a prefcription, or on agreement. 2 Vef. 451. July 1752. Morris v. Leffees of Lord Berkeley.

14. Injunction not granted to stay the use of a market. for there are remedies at law, by feire facias or action. Query, After the right has been established at law. 2 Vef. 15. Mich.

1752. Anon.

15. Termor of a ground rent may have an injunction against his leffee to stay wafte. Amb. 105. 1750, Farrent v. Lee.

16. Tenant for life without impeachment of waste enjoined from cutting down trees planted for fhelter or ornament, or in viftoes, planted walks, &c. Amb. 107. May 1751. Obrien v. Obrien.

17. The patron of a living may have an injunction against an incumbent to stay wafte: fo may the Attorney-General against a bishop. Amb. 176. Knight v. Mofeley.

18. The Court of Chancery will not grant an injunction to ftay the working of a colliery, but in cafe of the breach of an exprefs covenant, or of an uncontroverted mifchief. Amb. 209. Jan. 1754. Anon.

19. Demurrer to a bill for an injunction to restrain the defendants, who were leffees of the plaintiff, from injuring his fifhponds, overruled. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 64. Earl of Bathurst v. Burden. 17 May 1786.

20. Bill by the patronefs, the ordinary, bishop of the diocese, and churchwardens of the living of Oxted, against the widow of the late incumbent for an injunction to stay waste, during the vacancy, which after some hesitation the Lord Chancellor granted. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 552. Feb. 1789. Hofkins v. Featherfione.

21. Injunction to ftay watte refufed, where the plaintiff and the defendant in poffeffion were tenants in common; but granted on affidavit of the defendant's infolvency. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 621. May 1792. Smallman v. Onions.

22. Where there was great delay on the part of the vendor, an injunction to stay an action at law brought against the auctioneer for the depofit was refufed. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 496. Mich. 1793. Lloyd v. Collett.

23. An injunction was granted to stay an action at law brought against the auctioneer for the depofit, although the estate fold was reprefented as freehold, with leafehold adjoining, and was in fact almost all leafehold, and although there had been great delay in making out the plaintiff's title. 4 Bro. Ch. Rep. 491. Feb. 1794. Fordyce v. Ford.

5

24. An

24. An injunction was granted before anfwer to reftrain the defendant from proceeding farther in digging a ditch, but the court would not order it to be filled up till after answer. 1 Vef. jun. 140. Anon.

25. Injunction was moved for to reftrain the Foundling Hofpital from building on land belonging to and furrounding the hofpital, on the grounds that the original design was that the hofpital fhould be in the country. 2d, The risk of the undertakingAnd, 3dly, that the contracts which the trustees had made with the builders were improvident. The injunction was refused, as there was no breach of truft, or probability of it made out. 2 Ves. jun. 43. 1793. Attorney v. The Governors of the Foundling Hofpital, 4 Bro. 165. S. C.

25. Tenant for life having granted a leafe of coal mines. amounting to a forfeiture, cannot join the remainder-man in a bill for an injunction. 3 Vef. jun. 3. Nov. 1795. Wentworth v. Turner.

27. Where a tenant for life, fubject to wafte, has fold timber, c. he cannot have an injunction against the vendee to prevent his cutting it. lbid.

28. Where a tenant defending an ejectment brought by his landlord makes default at the trial, and, during the interval, does all the mischief he can, by committing breaches of covenants and wilful wafte, an injunction will be granted on motion, or, in the vacation, on petition; but where no ejectment had been brought, it was refufed. 5 Vef. jun. 259. Feb. 1800. Lathrop v. Marfb.

29. Injunction was granted to reftrain the landlord from cutting ornamental trees in a lawn during the term, upon his conduct, amounting to approbation of and confent to the tenant's plan of improvement in laying out the lawn. 5 Vef. jun. 688. Dec. 1800. Jackson v. Cator.

30. Sending a furveyor to mark out the trees was held a fufficient ground for an injunction. Ibid.

31. Motion to restrain the defendant, widow and administratrix of the inteftate, from difpofing of his property in the funds, on the ground of having fquandered the real eftate, of which the was in poffeffion for the plaintiffs, the children. Granted as to two thirds of the property, the fhare of the plaintiff. 1 Anftr. 174. Eaft. 33 G. 3. Rogers v. Rogers.

32. Where the principal difpute is as to the locality of lands of each, equity will not allow the defendant, after recovering in ejectment, which does not afcertain the land by metes and bounds, to take out execution upon whatever part he shall choose. 1 Anftr. 184. Eaft. 33 G. 3. Hardcaftle v. Shafto.

33. When lands are confused, and the plaintiff at law recovers under an inftrument, which states the whole to be 25 acres, and that 18 belong to him, whereas in fact the whole is 21 acres only, equity will injoin him from taking out execution for 18 acres ; he must abate in proportion. Ibid.

34. The court will not interfere by injunction (in the nature of an order to stay wafte) to prevent a breach of contract where no

trespass

trefpafs is committed. Mich. 39 G. 3. Longman, Broderip and others v. Calliford. 3 Anftr. 645. Nor to prevent a tenant's felling dung off the farm, contrary to the covenants in a leafe. 3 Anftr. 749June 36 G. 3. Johnson v. Goldfwain and others. Sed vide Geast v. Lord Belfast, ibid. in notis, contra.

35. Injunction granted to prevent the negociating a note obtained at play, upon affidavit, before fervice of the fubpena. 3 Anftr. 851. Hil. 37 G. 3. - v. Blackwood and others.

14 Vin 426. (A. 3) Grantable; in what Cafes to quiet Poffeffion.

I.

AN injunction was awarded to restore and quiet the plaintiff and his tenants in the poffeffion of the premises in question; but it was at the fame time ordered that he should appear to an ejectment to be brought by the defendant, in order to try the title. An ejectment was accordingly brought, and the defendant obtained a verdict, and was afterwards put into poffeffion; but on appeal it was ordered, that he should be at liberty to bring an ejectment to recover poffeffion of the premises, and that no mortgage fhould be fet up in bar to the title. 3 Bro. Par. Caf. 276, 1726. Seagrave v. Ryan.

2. It is ufual in Ireland, for a leffee who has been in poffeffion three years, and is difturbed, to file his bill in the Court of Chancery there, for an injunction to quiet him in poffeffion, till evicted by due courfe of law; and this ufage is founded upon the equity of the ftatutes against forcible entries; but all bills of this kind must allege, and it must alfo be proved, that the sole and actual poffeffion is in the plaintiff, and that no ownership or poffeffion is in any other perfon. 4 Bro. Par. Caf. 128. 1733. Vernon v. Mayor, &c. of Dublin.

3. Where there is a grant of a new invention by patent, a small, variation of the invention will not entitle another to break in upon the patent; and in the cafe of the grant of the fole printing of a book to the author, who takes whole paragraphs from another book, it is not material; for it may be neceffary to intro duce what is new. 3 P. Wms. 255. East. 1734. Gibbs v. Cole.

4. Where a man fuffers another to build upon his land, without fetting up a title till afterwards, the Court of Chancery will oblige him to permit fuch perfon quietly to enjoy. 2 Atk. 83. Nov. 1740. Eaft India Company v. Vincent.

5. On application for an injunction, it was determined, that the act 8 G. 2. for the encouragement of the arts of defigning, engraving, &c. is not confined to works of invention only, but means the defigning or engraving any thing already in nature; a print published of any building, house, or garden, is within the act. And the property of prints vefts abfolutely in the engraver, though the day of publication be not mentioned; but the property in books does not veft, without being first entered at Stationers'-hall. 2 Atk. 93. Dec. 1740. Blackwell v. Harper.

6. The ftatute 8 Ann. c. 19., for vefting the copies of books in authors, is not a monopoly, but ought to receive the most liberal conftruction. Books colourably fhortened, are within the act; but an abridgment fairly made is a new book, because the judgment of the author is fhewn in it. The object of this fuit was an injunction to stay printing a book, upon the fuggeftion that it was borrowed verbatim from another work. The court would not send it to law, because it would be abfurd for a judge to fit to hear both books read, but faid the parties fhould fix upon two perfons learned in the law to read the books, and report their opinion. 2 Atk. 141. March 1740. Gyles v. Wilcox.

7. Defendant, on the coming in of his anfwer, moved to dif folve an injunction against his vending a book of letters from Swift, Pope, and others: held that a collection of letters, as well as other books, is within the act of Ann. And the injunction was continued as to the letters written by Mr. Pope. 2 Atk. 342. June 1741. Pope v. Curl.-The receiver of a letter has a joint property with the writer, and the poffeffion does not give him a right to publish it.-The reprinting a book in ENGLAND, pirated and printed in IRELAND, is an evafion of the act. S. C.

8. The plaintiff moved for an injunction to prevent the defendant's using the Mogul ftamp on his cards, fuggesting the fole right to be in the plaintiff, having appropriated the stamp to himfelf, conformably to the charter granted to the card-makers' company by King Charles the First; but the court refufed the injunc tion, being of opinion that there was no inftance of reftraining a trader from making use of the fame mark with another. 2 Atk. 484. Dec. 1742. Blanchard v. Hill.

9. Leffor grants a building leafe for fixty-one years, of a house in Lincoln's-Inn Fields, to W., who afligns over the leafe to the plaintiff for the remainder of the term; plaintiff rebuilds the houfe, and lays out 5000l. for that purpofe, and pays the rent referved, viz. 40l. to the leffor, till his death. On the death of the leffor the defendant became entitled, as first remainder-man in tail; for fix years he received the rent, and then brought an ejectment, and recovered at law for want of the ufual covenants in the building lease. Plaintiff brought his bill for an injunction, and to be quieted in the poffeffion of the houfe. The court directed a new leafe to be executed with proper covenants, and the plaintiff to hold the premises for the remainder of the term. 3 Atk. 692. March 1748. Stiles v. Cowper.

10. The ftat. 8 G. 2. c. 13., relative to prints, protects only the maker and defigner. Amb. 164. March 1753. Jeffery v.

Baldwin.

11. An abstract of a book, published in a magazine, held not to be piracy; efpecially as the author had published extracts of it in another paper. Amb. 403. March 1761. Dodfley v. Minnerfley.

12. The author of a farce permitted it to be performed, for which he received a premium, but never published it; it was taken down in fhort hand during the performance. Injunction

granted

14 Vin. 427.

granted to restrain the printing and publishing it. Amb. 694 Dec. 1770. Maclin v. Richardfon.

13. Injunction granted to restrain the printing and publishing private letters, without the confent of the executors of the perfon who wrote them. Amb. 737. March 1774. Thompson v. Stanhope. 14. An injunction will be awarded against the fale of a book piratically taken from another, but not against a fair abridgment. 1 Bro. Ch. Rep. 451. Trin. 1785. Bell v. Walker.

15. A., having fold to a bookfeller a book of roads, which was printed in letter-prefs, after the expiration of the first 14 years fold it to another, who publifhed the high roads upon copperplates, and the cross roads in letter-prefs; as to the laft, an injunction was granted. 2 Bro. Ch. Rep. 80. Trin. 1786. Carnan v. Bowles.

16. Injunction that the validity of a patent might be tried at law; verdict for the patentee, fubject to the opinion of the court upon a cafe: the court were equally divided; the patentee muft bring another action: but the court would not impose any terms upon him, nor diffolve the injunction in the mean time. 3 Vef. jun. 140. June 1796. Bolton v. Bull.

17. The plaintiff publifhed a book of roads of Great Britain, comprising Patterson's Book, to the copyright of which the plaintiff was not entitled, with improvements and additions obtained by actual furvey and otherwife. An injunction to reftrain the publication of an edition of Patterson's Book, comprising the plaintiff's improvements and additions, was refufed. 3 Vef. jun. 20. Nov. 1799. Cary v. Faden.

18. Injunction against a colourable abridgement of the Term Reports B. R. among other law reports, till anfwer or further order, upon certificate of the bill filed. 5 Vef. jun. 709. January 1800. Butterworth v. Robinson.

(A. 4) Grantable; in what Cafes in general.

1. SIR Conflantine Phipps moved for an injunction, because the defendant had only demurred to the bill without pleading or anfwering, which he alleged was only in delay. The court refused to grant an injunction, but ordered the demurrer to be fet down to be argued on a fhort day. Bunb. 11.

Bowes.

1717. Lamb v.

2. Upon an extent an inquifition was taken, which found a term of fo much value; the defendant pleaded to the inquisition, and it was found for the crown; and it was infifted for the defendant that the court should order a venditioni exponas, but an injunction was awarded to put the crown into poffeffion. Bunb. 71. Rex v. Rawlins.

1720.

3. An injunction, to quiet the plaintiff in his poffeffion, may be moved for before fervice of the fubpoena to answer. Bunb. 110. 1722. Pearce v. Penrofe and others.

4. Notice