relief a landowner had against one who
injured it in any way was an action of waste to recover money damages.
A court of equity has power to issue a command to the person who
threatens or attempts to commit injury ordering and directing him to
desist from his purpose. This has been often used by the owners of
land against their tenants who attempted to do things that would
materially injure the property. This remedy is now often used to
secure the owner and occupier of land in its proper use against those
who attempt to commit a nuisance. While the occupier could recover
damages if he sought the aid of a law court, equity will order the
wrongdoer to abate the nuisance. Such a remedy is much more effective
than the legal one, because damages that may be recovered relate only
to a past offense, while the equitable one prevents it from happening
or from its continuance.

Promises not to do some particular act on a piece of land are often
made in deeds conveying them; they are called covenants. Equity will
usually enforce these covenants, and will compel the wrongdoer to undo
what he has done provided that relief is sought promptly. Thus if a
purchaser agrees not to build nearer the street than a stated line, he
can be enjoined from disregarding it. A purchaser therefore who built
two houses three feet beyond the agreed line was compelled to remove
them.

The remedy in such a case is an injunction. It may be temporary or
permanent. Quite often when one applies for an injunction, if the
injury threatened is immediate, the court will immediately enjoin the
party from proceeding and fix a time for a future hearing to decide
whether the injunction shall be dissolved or made permanent. The time
fixed for such a hearing is within the discretion of the court, and
depends on the nature of the case. Usually the time is quite short,
enough to enable the parties to collect the evidence relating to the
controversy. The hearing is conducted very much like any other trial,
witnesses appear, all the evidence is given, and is reviewed by
contending counsel, after which the judge announces his decision. Some
of the more noteworthy injunctions of recent days have been rendered
against labor unions or their members who, having struck for higher
wages, or other ends, have sought to picket the works of their
employers and thus prevent them from employing other workers to take
the places of the strikers. The unions contend that this is an
imp