c Abraham v bubb S C show Eq can ab Lord chancellor injunction to stay waste  vide post case one Abraham to who the plaintiff be heir upon his marriage do  settle the land upon which the waste in question be intend to be commit to the  use of himself and his wife and the heir of their two body afterward the  husband die without issue his wife be then tenant in tall after possibility of  issue extinct marry the defendant and she and her second husband have fall  some tree in a grove that grow near and be a ornament to the mansionhouse and  have a intent to fall the rest the plaintiff to who the land do belong in  remainder prefer his bill to restrain her from fall those tree and to have a  injunction to stay the commit of waste it be insist upon by the defendant that  tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct be by the law dispunishable  of waste as appear   in Lewis bowl case and I Inst b light sect and in the  case of Lewis bowl it be hold that if a lease be make without action of  attacking huge the tenant be not only dispunishable of waste but the property  of the tree be in he if he fall they and in the case of Wentworth v Wentworth  it be hold by all the judge of England that tenant in tail after possibility  of issue extinct be dispunishable of waste and so S Lewis bowless case two    freeman per curian the law former be hold to be that if there be tenant for  life without impeachment of waste that this do only create a impunity to the  tenant for life although it be the express provision of the party   but  afterward in Lewis bowless case   the opinion be that these word do vest a  right and interest in the tenant for life and do give he liberty to fall and  take the tree to his own use for there be a express provision of the party but  in the case of tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct that be the  provision of the law only and though in some case strong be disposition law  how man yet that shall not be to encumber estate but in many case where a  person be dispunishable in law for commit of waste yet this court shall enjoin  he as where there be tenant for life remainder for life remainder in fee the  tenant for life shall be restrain from commit of waste by the injunction of  this court though if he do commit waste no action of waste will lie against he  send semble that a action of trover in Whitfield v bewit p wms p wms and in  jesus college v bloom atk it seem admit that trover will lie though in the  former case it be say a bill in equity be the better remedy but in pine v dor  t r and in William v William east it be determine that against tenant in tail  after possibility c sans waste trover can be maintain the last cite case be  one send out of chancery for the opinion of the court of king bench when that  case be before the Lord chancellor Ves his lordship say he can not imagine how  it be doubt in Abraham v Bubb that the tenant be dispunishable have not as a  consequence the property in the tree that it be singular there shall be a  argument raise that such a tenant shall be restrain from commit malicious  waste by cut ornamental timber if it be understand to be the law that she can  not commit waste of any kind will lie for the reversioner because the property  of the tree be in he and though this action of trover be a new remedy yet it  be a just remedy and though this be a remedy not know heretofore yet it be  just and it must be admit that the law be better understand now than former it  be and the law by experience and practice be improve and learned man by study  see far and far into the depth of it per cancellar and he aid that in my Lord  chief justice roll time in the case of eudall v eudall cro Allen roll be of  opinion that a action of trover will lie for the reversioner against tenant in  tail after possibility of issue extinct for tree cut down by he and my Lord  chancellor declare he be of that opinion though he can not be punish by a  action of waste because he have only a impunity if he commit waste but no  interest in the tree but Pemberton argue strongly e contra and my Lord  chancellor say if there be tenant for life without impeachment of waste if he  go to pull down house c to do waste malicious this court will freeman er p  restrain although he have express power by the act of the party to commit  waste William v day Charles can Lord Bernard case Prec in Charles chamberlain  v Dummer Br for this court will moderate the exercise of that power and will  restrain extravagant humorous waste because it be pro good public to restrain  it and he say he freeman never know a injunction deny to stay the pull down of  house by tenant for life without impeachment of waste unless it be to sergeant  peck in my Lord Oxford case cite cro Elizabeth and he say he do believe he  shall never see this court deny it again and he cite the bishop of Winchester  case who make a lease for twentyone year without impeachment of waste of land  that have many tree upon it the tenant cut down none of the tree till about  half a year before the expiration of his term and then go to fall down the  tree and in that case he be enjoin by this court for though he may have fall  tree every year from the beginning of his term and then they will have be grow  up again gradual yet it be unreasonable that he shall let they grow till  towards the end of his term and then sweep they all away for though he have a  power to commit waste yet this court will model the exercise of that power  this case he say be in print report by I Jones but upon search I can find it  and he cite the lady Evelins case where there be tenant for life remainder to  the first son for life without impeachment of waste with remainder over the  first son b the leave of the lessee of tenant for life come upon the land and  fall the tree although he can not in that case be punish by a action of waste  yet he be enjoin by this court in the end this case be refer and if they can  not agree then to be set down again but my Lord chancellor discover his  inclination strongly for grant a injunction