Waples v. Waples

2 Del. 159

Opinion

Per curiam.

The action of waste is rarely brought in this state, having been nearly superceded by the action of ejectment. But the action may yet be brought. The view could not be asked for in this action until issue joined; this is, therefore, the first term when such a motion could have been made. Without deciding that a view is incident to the action of waste, we can say that it would often be proper, and frequently necessary, for the jury to see the place wasted, as it is attended with the highly penal consequence of a forfeiture of the place wasted.

The Court, therefore, order a view, and continue the cause for that purpose; and we direct that the first twelve jurors on the panel re~ turned to the next term, shall be the viewers, six of whom shall sit on the trial, allowing each of the parties to challenge three at the trial if he choose.

Ridgely, for plaintiff. Cullen, for defendant.