case Whitfield versus bewit refer to Seagram v knight l r Ch in re Barrington  Gamlen v lion Ch d Lord Macclesfield Eq can ab pl a tenant for life remainder  to his first c son in tail remainder to b for life remainder to his first c  son in tail remainder to c in tail a cut down timber a and b have no son bear  c be entitle to the timber both in law and equity one seize in fee of land in  which there be i all of they unopen by deed convey those land and all i water  tree c to trustee and their heir to the use of the grantor for life who soon  after die remainder to the use of a for life remainder to his first c son in  tail male successive remainder to b for life remainder to his first c son in  tail male successive remainder to his two sister c and d and the heir of their  body remainder to the grantor in fee a and b have no son and c one of the  sister die without issue by which the heir of the grantor as to one moiety of  the premise have the first estate of inheritance a have cut clown timber sell  it and threaten to open the i the heir of the grantor be seize of one moiety  peer William ut above by thedeath of one of the sister without issue bring  this bill for a account of the moiety of the timber and to stay a s open of  any I saint Obj as to the plaintiff claim of the moiety of the money arise by  sale of the timber in regard the plaintiff come into equity for the same it  will be more agreeable to the rule of equity that the money produce by the  timber shall be bring into court and put out for the benefit of the son as yet  unborn and which may be bear that these contingent remainder be in lap law and  under the protection of the law it will be most unreasonable that the money  shall be secure for the use of the son when there shall be any bear but as  soon as it become impossible there shall be a son then a moiety to be pay to  the plaintiff and the case will be the same if there be a son in ventre sa  mere or the plaintiff may bring trover and then what reason have he to come  into equity cur the right to this timber belong to those who at the time of  its be sever from the freehold be seize of the first estate of inheritance and  the property become vest in they as to the objection that trover will lie at  law it may be very necessary for the party who have the inheritance to bring  his bill in this court because it may be impossible for he to discover the  value of the timber it be in the possession of and cut down by the tenant for  life this be the very case of the duke of Newcastle versus Mr vane where at  Welbeck the duke be seat in Nottinghamshire great quantity of timber be blow  down in a storm and though there be several peer William tenant for life  remainder to their first and every other son in tail yet these have no son  bear the timber be decree to belong to the first remainderman in tail neither  do I think the defendant ought as he insist to be allow out of this timber  what money he have lie out in timber for repair since it be a wrong thing to  cut down and sell the same and show quo mind it be do not to repair but to  sell dly it be urge that the i be express grant by this settlement with the  land it be as strong a case as if the i themselves be limit to a for life and  like sander case in   where it be resolve that on a lease make of land  together with the i if there be no i open the lessee may open they so in this  case there be no i open the beneficiary and use for life may open they but  Lord chancellor contra a have only a estate for life subject to waste he shall  no more open a I than he shall cut down the timbertrees for both be equal  grant by this deed and the meaning of insert i tree and water be that all  shall pass but as the timber and i be part of the inheritance no one shall  have power over they but such as have a estate of inheritance limit to he of  which opinion be Lord chancellor king on a rehear peer William er p it appear  by Reg lib b fol that there be in this case trustee to preserve the contingent  remainder and the bill express state application to have be make to the heir  of the survive trustee to interpose and put a stop to the commission of the  waste but that he refuse to act vide Bewick v Whitfleld post vol rolt v Lord  somervile Eq can ab pl Garth v cotton atk and ves S c hark   Litt b note vide  jesus college v bloom atk and Amb S c Garth v Colton ub sup S c from Lord  hardwicke write judgement dick in lee v Alston bro c c bro c c Ves jun Lord  Thurlow be of opinion that the mere circumstance of timber have be wrongful  cut down give a right to a account and accord though the bill pray a  injunction the decree be for a account only Reg lib b but the late case have  decide accord to jesus college v bloom that the right to a account depend upon  the right to a injunction Pulteney v warren Ves university of Oxford and  Cambridge v Richardson Ves Grierson v Eyre Ves Richard v noble mere this rule  however do not extend to case where there be no remedy at law for waste  already commit a account may there be decree without a injunction Garth v  cotton ub sup marq of lansdown v marchioness dowager of lansdown mad in Dench  v Bampton Ves it be hold that a lord can not have a injunction against his  copyholder to stay waste but be leave to his legal remedy by forfeiture but  this be overrule in Richard v noble ub sup   Litt b Com dig be d Gower v Eyre  Cooper but ecclesiastical person be not bind to apply the identical timber in  repair knight v Moseley Ambl wither v dean of Winton mere herring v dean of  saint Paul swan nor trustee of a charity attorney g v Geary ib queen in the  case of a copyholder take timber by assignment Dench v Bampton Ves