case gibson versus smith may SC barn Charles Rep if a person have only  threaten to open i a plaintiff may certain come into this court to restrain a  defendant fromdoing it WhiIfield v bewit p W Lowther v stamper post vol it be  not necessary to stay till waste be actual commit where the intention appear  and the person insist on his right to do it vide hark   Litt b n Perrot v  Perrot post vol Garth v cotton post vol though no proof appear of waste yet if  tenant for life insist on a right to do it and have none the reversioner may  have a injunction the plaintiff be a trustee of the late duke of wharton  estate for the benefit of creditor and have sell a part to the defendant with  a particular exception and reservation of the waste of the manor and all i in  the say waste by virtue of a proviso in the deed of conveyance have bring this  bill to prevent the defendant from commit waste by open i c it be object that  the bill be not proper bring as this be not a matter for the determination of  a court of equity that it be a mere legal right and a legal estate and  consequent there be no occasion to come into this court atkins Lord chancellor  the plaintiff may certain come into this court to restrain the defendant from  open the i c even if he have only threaten to do it nor be it necessary the  plaintiff shall have wait till the waste be actual commit where the intention  appear and the defendant even by his answer insist on his right to do it there  be a great many case where such bill have be allow and indeed if the defendant  by his answer have disclaim any right there will have be no ground for such a  suit if a bill be bring by a owner of a reversion against a tenant for life  and no proof appear of any waste yet if tenant for life insist upon his right  and it be prove that he have none this court will grant a injunction as to the  merit of the cause the first point be with respect to the ground that be call  the common of pasture which the defendant insist be confine to a cow pasture  only but the plaintiff charge by his bill that they be the waste of the manor  and that there be a exception of all i which be in the waste the defendant on  the other hand say that this be not proper waste but enjoy by the customary  tenant and be part of the soil belong to these tenant and if he have make out  this fact there can have be no pretence for the claim the plaintiff set up by  virtue of the reservation but I be of opinion that they be to be consider as  part of the waste of the manor and the common of it for by the evidence it be  plain that the common of pasture lie intermix with the other commons which be  enjoy with the rest of the manor atkins er p from the middle of September to  the middle of April the gate of these ground which be stint for four month be  throw open and lie to the other common and be enjoy by all the inhabitant in  several manor there be some part of the tenant only which have a right of  commoning and yet it do not follow but it may be waste and belong to the lord  as much as if it be a general common this sort of tenure call tenantright  estate be now well settle vide bro Charles Rep and be in no disfavour of the  court though it be otherwise at the time of the decree in the reign of James  when Philip Lord wharton lord of this manor be plaintiff and some of the  customary tenant defendant atkins this be stint do not at all prove that they  be not waste but only for the benefit of the tenant and be not for this reason  less the waste of the lord than before it will be very hard upon a bill  because to fear where there be not the least syllable of proof that the  defendant have open any i to grant a injunction on a suspicion or a threaten  to do it where the defendant insist not upon his right the next point be as to  the free rend and I be clear of opinion that they pass by the general word  rend and will even have pass under the word manor if they have not in the draw  of these conveyance be so explicit and therefore there be no ground for the  defendant to reconvey as to the free rend and as to this part the plaintiff  bill ought to be dismiss