MANDATORY INJUNCTIONS. 10/ mandatory injunction. If I did not do so, the injury which has been inflicted upon the plaintiffs, though partly before the bill was filed, would be continued ; " and an order was made accordingly. In Westminster Brimbo Coal and Coke Co. v. Clayton,^ the bar- rier between two mines had been perforated, and the owner of one of them artificially conducted the water of his mine so as to pass by the perforations into the other mine, that, mode of removing the water from his mine being most beneficial to himself. The result was irreparable injury to the plaintiff. On an interlocutory application a mandatory injunction was granted, so as to bring things back into the state in which they were ajite litem inotam, and keep them there until the hearing. " The defendant is not at liberty by a new course of action to do irreparable damage to the plaintiff, and then, when the bill is filed, to say, ' The status quo shall be the state of things after the act is done.' " In Cooke v. Chilcott,^ a purchaser of land with a well or spring upon it covenanted with the vendor, who retained land adjoining intended to be disposed of for building-sites, to erect a pump and reservoir, and to supply water from the well to all houses built on the vendor's land. It was held by Vice-Chancellor Malins, that although the covenant was not one of which the court could de- cree specific performance, as being for the construction of works, which the court could not superintend, it could be enforced indi- rectly by an injunction restraining defendant from allowing the work to remain unperformed. This was upon the authority of Storer v. Great Western Ry. Co.,^ and Lane %>. Newdigate.* It would extend this article beyond reasonable limits to under- take here to mention the very numerous cases in the American reports in which mandatory injunctions have been granted. They all proceed upon the theory that where the circumstances of the case require this extraordinary remedy in order that justice may prevail, it will be granted. Many of the cases are collected and stated in a comprehensive and valuable note to the case of City of Moundsville v. Ohio River R. R. Co.,^ and in an excellent note to Murdock's Case.^ I desire merely to refer to a few cases which tend to show how firmly the jurisdiction is now established, and how necessary it is 1 (1867) 36 L. J. Ch. 476. 2 (1876) L. R. 3 Ch. Div. 694. •'(1842) 2 Y. & C. Ch. 48. * {1804) 10 Ves. 192. ' (1892) 20 L. R. A. 161 ; 37 W. Va. 92. • (1829) 20 Am. Dec. 381 ; 2 Bland Ch. 461.
