case jesus college against bloom in chancery Nov see Pulteney v warren Ves Jun  Parrott v palmer my king sawyer v Goodwin l I Ch approve wright v Pitt l r Eq  bill in equity do not lie against a tenant for satisfaction for waste do in  cut timber without pray a injunction to stay waste nor will lie for a account  and satisfaction for stone pick and carry off the land lib Reg b foe nom  principal and fellow of jesus college v bloom S g atk this bill be bring by  the master and fellow of jesus college in Oxford for a account of timber cut  down on the premise by they let to the defendant and for a account of some  stone which he have carry off the land ambler Lord chancellor this be the most  extraordinary bill that ever be bring in this court and I hope never to see  one of the like nature again on this bill there arise two question first  whether bill be to be maintain in this court mere for timber cut down after  the term be go out of the tenant by assignment or whether such bill can only  be bring for a account of such waste do without at the same time pray a  injunction and I be of opinion that they can waste be a loss for which there  be a proper remedy by action in a court of law the party be not necessitate to  bring a action of waste but he may bring trover those be the remedy and  therefore there be no ground of equity to come into this court for  satisfaction of damage be not the proper ground for the court to admit of  these sort of bill but the stay of waste because the court presume when a man  have do waste he may commit the same again and therefore will suffer the  lessor or reversioner when be bring his bill for a injunction to stay waste to  pray at the same time a account of the waste do for though a court of law may  give damage yet it can prevent further waste and it be upon this ground to  prevent multiplicity of suit that this court will decree a account of waste do  at the same time with a injunction just like the case of a bill bring for  discovery of asset a account may be pray at the same time and though original  the bill be only bring for a discovery of asset yet to prevent multiplicity of  suit the court will direct a account to be take see Tomlinson v Gill post  bishop v church Ves tates v Hamble atk if the court be to allow of these sort  of bill it will create infinite vexation there be not one precedentto warrant  it the case cite do not come up to the present Whitfield v Bewick wms it do  not appear in that case that a injunction to stay waste general be not pray if  it be that bring it within the common case as to the case of the bishop of  Winchester v knight wms I be at a loss to know upon what ground the court go  the book say because it be a demand ambler against a executor but I doubt  great as to this for it be far from be a general rule of this court to  entertain a bill against a executor for a tort commit by his testator the more  probable reason for decree a account in that case seem to be because it be the  case of i and the court always distinguish between dig of i and cut of timber  because the dig of i be a sort of trade and there be many case where this  court will relieve and decree a account of over take when in any other tort or  wrong do it have refuse relief if this be the reason of the determination in  that case as I real think it be it stand quite different from the present I be  therefore of opinion upon this first head that this bill bring by jesus  college to have satisfaction for timber cut down after a assignment of the  lease when the proper remedy be at law ought to be dismiss see story v Lord  Windsor atk sayer v pierce Ves Curtis v Curtis bro c c second as to the cost  and I be of opinion that the bill ought to be dismiss with cost for in the  first place I be doubtful whether be it within the jurisdiction of this court  in point of value as to the timber cut down the plaintiff witness swear that  he sell it for only pound or pound if it be so it be below the notice of the  court in point of value for the underwood must be lie entire out of the case  as to the stone that be a most vexatious demand it appear that there be lose  stone lie about the field which be a encumbrance and hurt to the land and the  tenant in order to meliorate the land clear they off and notwithstanding all  this the plaintiff pray ambler er p a account of they and satisfaction further  this bill ought to have be bring in the grand session in Wales for as the  thing be of so small value it add to the vexation of the suit to bring it here  it be say the tenant have do some waste and that it be a sufficient ground for  this bill but I think it be not but allow it to be so yet as it be doubtful  whether the demand be not below the dignity of this court the plaintiff ought  to pay cost object that the defendant answer be falsify as to the damage and  therefore be ought to pay cost but here it be pretty difficult to determine  what be timber and ambler what be not and therefore I do not think his answer  be falsify as to the fact but only as to his judgement of the timber upon the  whole as the estate appear to be so much improve by the act of the defendant  for it appear that the land be before worth but S a acre and be now let at S  and as it be to be presume that the college will not have refuse to let the  defendant do this if he have ask they as the benefit to the estate be so great  and apparent I do not think that the tenant neglect in not ask they leave to  do these act be a sufficient reason to punish he with cost bill dismiss with  cost but without prejudice to any remedy the plaintiff may have at law l r in  Garth v cotton dick S c atk Ves hark   Litt b n Lord Hardwicke allude to the  decision in the principal case say it afford no conclusive argument that a  bill for account of waste can be maintain without pray a injunction and Lord  Thurlow in the case of lee v Alston bro c c make a decree for a account only  the late case however have recognize the doctrine lie down in the text see  Pulteney v warren Ves gherson v Eyre Ves Richard v noble mere