which defeats the injunction, however, may preclude the complainant from an accounting. If the plaintiff's right to an injunction has been barred by laches, this may also be ground for refusing an account,1 and the injunction and account would both be refused, unless the complainant is in possession and has the right to maintain an action for mesne profits against the defendant, for without this right existing in himself his bill would state no equity.2

§ 497. Injunctions against corporations. In all cases where the acts of a corporation are liable to result in irreparable injury to another, whether such person is a stockholder or one in no way interested in the corporation, an injunction is the proper remedy to prevent the corporation from abusing the powers conferred by its charter. Corporations are under the same police regulations as natural persons, in respect to the use of their property and the exercise of their powers and the same rules of law govern in this as in other actions against them. When an injunction is served against a corporation it binds all the officers and agents of the company who have knowledge of the same, and if the president of the corporation, on whom an injunction has been served, conceals the fact of such service. from the other officers of the company, he will be liable for a breach of the injunction on his part, if they ignorantly perform acts in violation of the order of the court.5

1 High on Inj., § 670, p. 517; Parrott v. Palmer, 3 Myl. & K. 632; s. c. Mor. Min. Dig. 149, p. 147.

2 Brocker v. Preston, 1 Pinney, 584.

3 Boone on Cor. 149; High on Inj. § 1200; Big Mt. Imp. Co.'s App., 54 Pa. St. 361.

4 High on Inj., supra; Boone on Cor., supra.

5 Golden Gate H. L. M. Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Cal. 187; Boone on Cor., supra; People v. Albany & V. R. Co., 12 Ab. Pr. 171. And a court has power to punish a corporation, like an individual, for contempt.

§ 498. Same Grounds for. It is useless to attempt to enumerate nearly all of the grounds for an injunction against mining corporations, as the adjudged cases in the reports of the different States furnish much better data on specific cases; the remedy, however, is most frequently resorted to to prevent an appropriation of the corporate property for the purposes unauthorized by the by-laws of the company; 1 to restrain the corporation from constructing works not needed by the corporate business; 2 to restrain the officers of the corporation from transferring the corporate assets beyond the limits of the State where it was organized, and to quell disputes arising between different members of the company, which would prevent a proper administration of the corporate affairs.4 And in addition to the grounds above mentioned, the remedy can be resorted to by third parties to restrain injuries to their property rights, in all cases where the same injury would justify a similar remedy against a natural person. But an injunction would not be granted where there was a plain and adequate remedy at law 6 and the application must at all times be made without

High on Inj., § 1460, p. 1127. An injunction against a corporation binds not only the corporation, but all of its officers and agents. Golden Gate Hyd. Mining Co. v. Superior Ct., 65 Cal. 187; Mexican Ore Co. v. Mex. Guadalupe Mining Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 354. But see, where plaintiff's misconduct will excuse defendant for violation of writ, Van Zandt v. Argentine Mining Co., 2 McCreary (U.S.), 642; Mowrer v. State, 107 Ind. 539; 10 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 1104.

1 Binney's Case, 2 Bland, 99; Boone on Cor., § 149; Middlesex Turnpike Co. v. Locke, 8 Mass. 268.

2 Newark P. R. Co. v. Elmer, 1 Stockt. 754.

3 Matthews v. Trustees &c., 7 Phil. 270; Boone on Cor. 149.

4 Featherstone v. Cooke, Law R. 16 Eq. 298; Johnston v. Jones, 8 Greene C. E. 216; Boone on Cor., supra.

5 Richmond &c. Co. v. Richmond, 26 Gratt. 83.

Howev. Rochester &c. Co., 66 Barb. 592; Brown v. Concord, 56 N. H. 375; Boone Cor., § 149; Chesapeake Ry. Co. v. Babbett, 5 Wash. (V) 138.

undue delay. It will not generally be granted against the governing body of a corporation unless it appear that all means of compulsion, in the power of the corporation, have been resorted to in vain, and where the mischief that the injunction is intended to prevent has already been accomplished by the corporation, the injunction would of course be refused.1

1 Boone on Cor., § 149, p. 221; Foss v. Horbottel, 2 Hare, 461; Mosley v. Alston, 1 Phil. Ch. 790.

CHAPTER IV.

ACTION FOR WASTE.

SECTION 499. History of the action.

500. By and against whom maintainable.

508. Same How right affected by abandonment of mine.
509. Exemption from liability for waste.

510. Waste by licensee - Action on the case.

511. Joinder of plaintiffs under the code.

512. When equity will interfere.

§ 499. History of the action. In early times waste could only be committed in respect to estates of dower and curtesy, the reason obtaining that as they were the only estates created by law, the law should, in such estates, provide for the protection of the inheritance. Subsequently the action was extended by statute to all kinds of estates for life, and for years, and by the statute of Gloucester the party committing the waste was chargeable with a penalty of treble damages, together with a forfeiture of his estate.3 A judgment could be recovered for treble the actual damage committed at common law, and the land upon which the waste was committed was forfeited to the reversioner.

1 Tiedeman's Real Property, § 72, p. 49, where a full exposition of the early doctrine is had.

2 See Statute of Marlbridge, cited supra.

31 Washburn on R. P., §§ 139-140; Tiedeman R. P., supra.

4 Parrott v. Barney, Deady, 405, holding this statute to be part of the common law of the United States.

Where the waste had been already committed, the party was liable in an action at law for damages, and where the waste was only threatened, an injunction would be granted to restrain the commission of the unlawful acts, or to prevent its repetition in the future.1 But the common law technical action of waste for treble damages, could only be maintained by the tenant of an estate of inheritance, immediately succeeding the particular estate, and the interposition of a freehold estate in remainder would take away this action,3 although the common law action on the case, in the nature of waste, could be maintained by any one who had a reversionary interest in the land and had been injured therein.4

§ 500. By and against whom maintained. By the code the common law action of waste has been abolished and a civil action substituted therefor, under which judgment is recoverable for the forfeiture of the thing wasted and damages for treble the amount at which the waste is assessed. The action, under the code, can be mantained

1 See Chap. on Injunction; Gibson v. Smith, 2 Atk. 182; Caldwell v. Baylis, 2 Mer. 408.

2 Tiedeman R. P., § 81, p. 57; Co. Lit. 218b, note, 122; Williams v. Bolton, 3 P. Wms. 268; Bacon v. Smith, 1 Q. B. 345.

3 Tiedeman R. P., supra; Hunt v. Hall, 37 N. Y. 363; Peterson v. Clark, 15 Johns. 205-206.

4 Williams v. Bolton, supra. See, for rule in code States as to this distinction, Brown v. Bridges, 30 Iowa, 145. The common-law writ of waste was abolished in England by Statute 3 and 4 Wm. IV., c. 27, and is superseded in most of the United States by the action of trespass on the case, in the nature of waste. 22 Enc. Pl. & Pr., p. 1101, 1102; Rogers v. Coal River Co., 41 W. Va. 596; Bollenbacher v. Frits, 98 Ind. 52; Stevens v. Rose, 69 Mich. 259. A statute authorizing waste does not affect the common law right of action for waste. Thackeray v. Eldigan (R. I.), 44 Atl. Rep. 689; Cecil v. Clark (W. Va.), 35 S. E. Rep. 11; Id. 39 S. E. 202.

5 Statutes different States; R. S. Mo. 1899, § 4146.