Court Of Chancery, Monday...
LAW REPORT. ? oe oI) bOUHANCELLOA determined thmt tmere 3na t- e -,Sn- other qxaminptin of the pedtioner, before his Lords.hipoiald fen- ture upon a decision. EO)Y V. Ro2y. In this caseof appeal, a bill had. been filed for wastCin cuting anid-seling timber, by the owner of the first estate of inheritance against tenant forlife whose children also artotke ine life.estate in the freehold. e thethjiut The bill prayed an account, a render of profits, and the value of the timber ctt during-30 years past. The answer pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and referred the petitioner to his-legal remedy. The amended bill sought, in the alternativev, the profits or produce of the waste during the six last years, wvhich eonfessedly would not come within the statute: the barring of the inberitor's claim by tha statute was opposed by the distinctions aillowed in the cares. The matter fell, for the pTesentsi ito a ouertion, whrther the bill should follow, in Its analogies, the r dy given in action of tort or that glven by action of atsurnpsiM; and the Compint ot theplatiffin ppeal was, that the defendant bad sought nore bv his bill than'any remedy hetould by any posibility hIve obeainei in either of these actions. Mir. HEALD and Mr. SWANSTO0 TWere for the appeal: r. HAIT and lVr. KOE supported the original bill The LonD CIWAWC3LLOR, in postponirng the judgment, ob- served, that there was no doubt that timber cut by tenant for lifet, impeaebable for waste, would devolve on the reversdoner i% fee (M r. Seanston had informoed the Curt that the tenant in feeozdy couJt bring the action, which was nspi the power of anyone of theinter. mediatex takers) bt reason of iteverance from the freehold. Itwas also true, as it hal been asserted, that the inclination of the ourt was very reluctant as to calling for aniccomr, except for purp^t or injunction. But the jtrisdiction being once Posessed of the queg. tion, was freqsentlv led to presribe z remedy without putting the plaintiff to the additional trouble of seeklng it in a court ; nd it so doing, the Court would of coarse take notice of what was the practice in common law, in regard to the Statate of LLi"I tations, when plealed in bar of a dormant claim; and, as they all very well knewv, that practice admitted very slight Lirc,mson=c in removing the bar so pleaded. He wacs not Prepared to say but that asssmpzit at law, or a bill anvlogous to amsn, p& fil equity, nmght be had in a case of this Idnd- but titeti the bill boutd cautiously follow the analogies of the action whether tort or as- rumpvit, n the remnedy which it prayed; otberWise it wonld not he a true representation, and the Court might refuse the emmedy which could most suitably have been askevA of it, if prayed fbr und .'v an tr^r>. mA COUMT Or CEANQERY. MGIAnAn Nw T Js-W* LATRA3N, IN 3;E LATAX AIXD PY, -A-