Hensley

Held that as to the first point made by the defendant, if the complaint contained nothing more than the general allegation of “ irreparable injury,” it would not he sufficient. 2 Cal. Rep., 469 . It, however, shows otherwise.

Courts in England were for a long time extremely strict in confining the relief in .equity to eases of tenancy, founding their interference in restraint of waste, on the privity of title between the parties. Finally, the rigor of the ancient rule was relaxed upon the avowed principle of dooming in matters of trespass where irreparable injury resulted from the acts complained of; and upon the relaxation of the principle, Lord Eldon granted an injunction to restrain a trespasser from digging coal upon the premises of another. Mitchel vs. Does, 6 Ves., 147; 7 Ves., 807. In these cases the injury was peculiar and especial; the injunction was sustained on the ground of irreparable mischief, *213 said that the rain of the property, as a mine, would fee the eonaequesee» So taking stones from.'a quarry. 18 Yes., 184. In these cases &o mischief reaches to the substance and value of the estate, and -goes' fc> the destruction of it, in the character in which'it is…