Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/123

103 MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS. IO3 the matter in controversy back to the position from which the de- fendant's wrongful act has changed it, so that it may be preserved until the final decree. If it were otherwise, the administration of justice would be defective, which a court of equity is the last to admit. It appears that from an early day the High Court of Chancery took jurisdiction to prevent by injunction the ploughing up of ancient pasture lands, and the early entries of restraining orders of this nature are collected in Tothill's Reports, pp. 143, 144. Among these is to be found the case of Rolls v. Miller,^ which is probably the earliest instance of an order in chancery looking to a manda- tory injunction ; for in that case it appears that not only was the defendant restrained from ploughing up the pasture lands, but he was ordered to show cause why he should not lay down again that which he had ploughed. Doubtless there are many instances in which the court exercised the jurisdiction to grant mandatory injunctions from that time forward. At any rate in 1716 the jurisdiction was no longer questioned, and it was applied by Chancellor Cowper, in the famous case of Vane v. Lord Barnard.^ The circumstances of that case were these: The defendant on the marriage of the plaintiff, his eldest son, with the daughter of Morgan Randyll, and ;^io,ooo portion, settled Raby Castle on himself for life, without impeachment of waste, remainder to his son for life, and to his first and other sons in tail male. Lord Barnard, having taken some displeasure against his son, got together two hun- dred workmen, and of a sudden, in a few days, stripped the castle of the lead, iron, glass doors, boards, etc., to the value of ^3,000. On the filing of the bill the court granted an injunction to stay the committing of waste in pulling down the castle. This injunction was made perpetual on the hearing of the case, and it was decreed that the castle should be repaired and put into the same condition it was in before the acts of waste were begun ; and for that purpose a commission was issued to ascertain what ought to be repaired, and a Master was appointed to see it done at Lord Barnard's ex- pense. It is to be observed that the court, possibly foreseeing the difficulty it might encounter in compelling the defendant to do the necessary work of restoring the castle, did this work itself. 1 (1640, 15 Chas. I.) Tothill's Rep. 144. 2 (1716) 2 Vernon, 738; also reported as Lord Barnard's Case, Precedents in Chancery, 454. 14