3.  That  the  defendant  be  resti'ained  by  injunction  from  commit-
ting or  permitting  any  further  waste  on  the  said  premises.
4.  For  the  costs  of  this  action.
John  E.  Van  Etten,

Plaintiff's  Attorney.
The  answer. —  Under  a  general  denial  the  defendant,  if  not  a
mere  trespasser  or  intruder,  may  show  title  out  of  the  plaintiff  at
the  commencement  of  the  action  without  even  connecting  him-
self with  such  outstanding  title  in  any  way  —  Qillett  v.  Stanley,  1
Hill,  121 ;  Schauber  v.  Jackson,  2  Wend.  18 ;  Raynor  v.  Tim-
erson,  46  Barb.  518  —  since  the  plaintiff  can  only  recover  on  the
strength  of  his  title,  not  on  the  weakness  of  his  adversary's.
Lamont  v.  Cheshire,  65  N.  Y.  30 ;  Wallace  v.  Swinton,  64  id.
188.
Under  a  general  denial,  evidence  is  admissible  to  show  an  estop-
pel. Creque  v.  Sears,  17  Hun,  123.  A  defendant  who  claims  title  by
adverse  possession  cannot  deny  occupancy.  Porter  v.  McGrath,  41
Super.  Ct.  84.  But  a  mere  denial  of  possession,  or  of  unlawful
withholding,  does  not  put  the  plaintiff's  title  in  issue.  Ford  v.
Sampson,  30  Barb.  183.  Whatever  shows  that  the  plaintiff  is  not
entitled  to  the  immediate  possession  of  the  premises  claimed,  consti-
tutes a  defense  in  an  action  of  ejectment.  Hunter  v.  Trustees  of
Sandy  Hill,  6  Hill,  407.  A  defendant  cannot,  however,  avail  him-
self of  an  outstanding  title,  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations,  or
which  has  never  been  fully  vested  in  the  grantee.  Chapman  v.  J).,
L.  &  W.  R.  R.  Co.,  3  Lans.  261 ;  Hoag  v.  Hoag,  35  N.  Y.  469.
Defendant  may  interpose  an  equitable  defense,  but  it  must  be
pleaded.  Traphagen  v.  Traphagen,  40  Barb.  537 ;  Thurman  v.
