case perrot versus perrot the second general seal after Trinity term June a  limitation to a for life to trustee to preserve c to the first c son of a in  tail remainder to b for life remainder to his first c son in tail reversion in  fee to a who cut down timber against who b bring his bill for a injunction to  stay waste though b have no right to the timber yet as he have a interest in  the mast a shall die without son and b can not maintain a action not have the  immediate remainder the court continue the injunction there be a limitation in  a settlement to the defendant for life to trustee to preserve contingent  remainder to his first and every other son in tail remainder to plaintiff for  life remainder to trustee to preserve contingent remainder with remainder to  his first and every son in tail reversion in fee to the defendant the first  tenant for life before he have any son bear cut down timber the plaintiff who  be the second tenant for life bring his bill for a injunction to stay waste Mr  attorney general for the plaintiff show cause why the injunction for restrain  the defendant from commit any further waste shall not be dissolve it be insist  by Mr solicitor general for the defendant that the timber which he have cut  down be decay tree and will be the worse for stand and that it be of service  to the public that they shall be cut down and that it be very notorious that  timber especial oak when it be come to perfection decay much fast in the next  twenty year than it improve in goodness the twenty year immediate precede that  as the defendant have exercise this power in such a restrain manner and  confine himself mere to decay timber which grow worse every day that this  court will not interpose especial as the plaintiff be not entitle to come into  this court as he have not the immediate remainder and beside have no remedy at  law atkins Lord chancellor the question here do not concern the interest of  the public unless it have be in the case of the king forest and chase for this  be mere a private interest between the party and it be by accident that no  action at law can be maintain against the defendant because no person can  bring it but who have the immediate remainder consider too in how many case  this court have interpose to prevent waste suppose here the trustee to  preserve contingent remainder have bring a bill against the defendant to stay  waste for the benefit of the contingent remainder vide Whitfield v bewit Cox p  W note Garth v cotton post William v duke of Bolton Cox p W note I be of  opinion they may have support it but here it be the second tenant atkins er p  for life vide boswell case roll ab pl p W note who have do it and though he  have no right to the timber yet if the defendant the first tenant for life  shall die without son the plaintiff will have a interest in the mast and shade  of the timber the case of Welbeck park which have be mention be a very  particular one because there by the accident of a tempest the timber be throw  down and be mere the act of God but this be not the present case for here a  bare tenant for life take upon he to cut down timber and it be not pretend  that they be pollard only and though the defendant counsel have attempt to  make a distinction between cut down young timber tree that be not come to  their full growth and decay timber I know of no such distinction either in law  or equity therefore upon the authority of those case which have be very  numerous in this court of interpose to stay waste in the tenant for life where  no action can be maintain against hill at law as the plaintiff have not the  immediate remainder the injunction must be continue till the hear Reg lib b  fol