ant from selling or removing certain quantities of coal oil claimed by the plaintiff under the circumstances appearing in the judgment of court. Mr. BETHUNE, for the application. Mr. MCLENNAN, contra. STRONG, V. C. The plaintiff alleges, and I think he also sufficiently, for the purposes of this motion, proves, that he and a person nained Luce, being tenants in common of an oil well, agreed to construct, and did construct, a tank of suflicient capacity to contain 2,400 barrels of oil, and that they filled this tank with oil, 1,500 barrels of this oil being the plaintiff's and the remaining 800 barrels belonging to Luce, upon the agreement that the oil was not to be sold until $5 per barrel could be procured for it. That Luce, in fraud of the plaintiff, sold to the defendants the plaintiff's oil together with his own, at the price of $1.25 per barrel, and the defendants are now about to remove the oil from the tank. Upon this state of facts the plaintiff asks for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendants from removing the oil. I am of opinion that the agreement between the plaintiff and Luce did not constitute a partnership either inter se or as regards third persons. The evidence does not seem sufficient to make out that there was an ostensible partnership, and there was not, in my judgment, such a community of profit and loss as to create a partnership in the absence of express agreement. Luce, therefore, had no authority to bind the plaintiff; and the sale did not confer any legal title upon the defendants, who, if they remove a greater quantity of the oil than the 800 barrels belonging to Luce, will do so wrongfully. But I am unable to discover any ground on which to found the jurisdiction of this court. The oil can not be said to be of any peculiar value, being a staple commodity which can always be purchased, and therefore property in respect of any damage to which compensation can be had at law; and I can discover no fiduciary relationship existing between the plaintiff and Luce, which would warrant an interference on any such ground as the court interfered in the case of Pooley v. Bud, 14 Beav. 34. Luce was not even intrusted with the posse. sion of oil as the plaintiff's agent; for according to the statement of McIntyre, who made an affidavit read by the plaintiff on this motion, he, McIntyre, was left by the plaintiff in charge of the oil. If, therefore, the motion was to succeed, I could sug gest no case of threatened injury to chattels which the comt. could not be called upon to restrain, and it is clear upon authority that in all but the two classes of cases I have indicated the court ought not to interfere. I am aware of the dictum of Lord Westbury in the case of Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 H. L. C. 191, but I do not consider that would warrant me in granting an injunction. Moreover, I think the objection that Luce ought to have been a party is well founded. I refuse the motion. ALLISON AND EVANS' APPEAL. PORTERFIELD AND TREAT'S APPEAL. (77 Pennsylvania State, 221. Supreme Court, 1874.) "Protection" to oil lease. Oil land described by metes and bounds with a "protection" of eight rods on the north side and ten rods on the east side, was leased to Evans. Held, that the "protection" extended to the point where the lines on the respective sides of the land would intersect. Injunction against operation on the protest on. Oil land on the northeast corner of Evans' lease was let to Treat, who sank a well within the "protection," injuring Evans' well on his land. Held, that Treat could be restrained from operating on the "protection," and that in the same proceeding damages could be assessed against him for the injury. 'Equity jurisdiction, once acquired, extends to trespasses. As a general principle, when a court of equity has obtained jurisdiction for one purpose it may retain it generally for relief; as well in cases of continuing trespass and waste as in cases of fraud, accident, mistake and account. Prevention of multiplied suits. To prevent multiplicity of suits, a court of equity will decree an account of the damages or waste at the same time with an injunction, and make a decree to settle the entire controversy. Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas of Clarion County. The bill in this case was filed July 1, 1872, by J. W. Allison and A. Evans against R. W. Porterfield and M. C. Treat, It set out that Joseph Foust, on the 15th of July, 1871. leased for twenty years to Philip Foust and William Spencer, by metes and bounds, which were stated in the bill, a lot of ground containing three acres, one hundred and twenty-three perches of land, "for the sole and only purpose of mining and excavating for petroleum, coal, rock or carbon oil," and also a "protection of ten rods on the east side" of the lot, "and eight rods on the north side;" the lessees to deliver to the lessor one eighth of the petroleum, ete., raised on the premises; the lessor to use the premises for tillage, except such part as may be necessary for mining purposes and a right of way to the places of mining, etc.; that on the 29th of March, 1872, the lessees transferred their interest in the lease unto A. Evans, one of the plaintiffs, and on the 19th of July, 1872, Evans transferred seven eighths to J. W. Allison, the other plaintiff; that the defendants had entered on "the protection," and, after notice from the plaintiffs to desist, had erected machinery on "the protection," and "were boring and drilling thereon for carbon and petroleum, in violation of said notice and the rights of the plaintiffs." The prayers were: 1. For an injunction. 2. For an account of all waste, etc., "and in the event of their obtaining oil prior to the judicial determination of this case, to account for all oil so obtained from the premises." The defendants answered that they entered on the land. mentioned in the bill under a lease from Joseph Foust, the plaintiffs' lessor, and denied that they were in "the protection" set out in the bill; they averred that the land leased by them from Joseph Foust lies northeast of the northeast corner of the plaintiffs' leasehold; that their lease from Joseph Foust was bounded by lines which were merely an extension of plaintiffs' north and east lines, beyond their northeast corner; they further averred that they believed that the land leased to them was not covered by "the protection" men tioned in the bill, and that they were advised as matter of law that "the protection" did not extend to any land included in their lease. The question as to the land within "the protection" was, whether the north and east lines of "the protection" were to be extended until they met, or whether "the protection" on the north side extended no farther than to the east line of the leased land, and on the east side no farther than to the north line of the leased land; in the latter case the defendants might sink wells, etc., immediately outside of plaintiffs' leasehold. The annexed diagram may more clearly indicate the respective claims of the parties. James Boggs, Esq., was appointed examiner and master. He took testimony in the case, and, as master, reported amongst other things that the plaintiffs commenced sinking an oil well on the premises leased to them, and completed it on the 14th of January, 1872. The well produced from ninety to one hundred barrels of oil daily; that on the 28th of March, 1872, Joseph Foust leased to the defendants a lot lying northeast from plaintiffs' lot, containing about two acres, and shortly afterward commenced sinking a well on the disputed part. The plaintiffs commenced a second well on their lot which was completed July 15, 1872, and produced about fifty barrels of oil daily. The defendants' well was completed about. the middle of August, 1872, and then produced about sixtyfive barrels of oil daily. The product of oil from the plaintiffs' wells decreased, and at the hearing before the master the aggregate product of both their wells was about sixteen barrels daily. He also reported the amount of oil which the defendants had obtained from their wells, its value, etc.; that the sinking o. the well was an injury to the plaintiffs, and that the amount of damages was one half of the whole production of the well. He further reported his opinion in the case as follows: * * * "This protection was to prevent Joseph Foust, or any other person under him, from putting down an oil well at any place within the prescribed limits. At no place could Joseph Foust, or any other person under him, put down a well on the north side of this Evans and Allison lease within |