372 BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND.

ences between the two, either as to parties, or subject of contro
versy, as in the cases under consideration, other reasons and prin-
ciples apply.

It has been said, that where an injunction had been refused by
the Chancellor, it could not be granted by a County Court upon
the same case; or the reverse. This opinion seems to be sufficiently
well founded, if referred to a case in which the first bill is actually
depending at the time when the second application is made to the
co-ordinate Court; or where, on hearing of the parties, or by de-
fault, the one Court has refused or dissolved the injunction upon
the same case, in which an injunction is asked for in the other
Court. Because, if all that had been done in the one Court, was
to go for nothing in the other, a party might in every instance, as
a matter of course, avail himself of all the delay to be had in the
one Court, and then take advantage of the identical same means
of procrastination in the other Court, after a solemn judgment had
been pronounced there upon his case, without resorting to the
regular course of setting that judgment right. Reynolds v. Pitt,
19 Yes. 138.

But an injunction is, in its effects and consequences, in many
respects, analogous to a prohibition. The object of an injunction
is to protect the citizen from harm, by acting upon the person com-
plained of. The same object is, in many instances, intended to be
accomplished by a prohibition, which acts immediately upon the
inferior tribunal; Eden Inj. 3; a party may apply to each one of
the Superior Courts, in succession for a prohibition; and his ex
parte application having been refused by one, is of itself, no ground
for its being rejected by any other of them. Smart v. Wolff, 3 T.
R. 340; Forum Rom. 55. I therefore do not see why, upon the
same principles, a citizen might not be allowed to take his chance,
by a first ex parte application of obtaining an injunction from each
one of the Courts having jurisdiction of his case, in like manner,
as he is allowed to apply to each one for a prohibition, without
prejudice from having been refused by another of them; particu-
larly as the Statute 4 Ann. C. 16. s. 22; Kilty Rep. 247; does not
require an injunction * bill to stay waste or proceedings at
603 law, to be filed before the subpoena is issued. Williams v.
Hall, 1 Bland, 193, note.

Under our Government, the Federal Courts and the State Courts
have, in many instances, a concurrent jurisdiction; and either may
have cognizance of the case, either as a Court of common law or
of equity. If the plaintiff and the defendant be citizens of different
States, the suit may be brought in either; but if the suit be insti-
tuted in a State Court, its proceedings will not be stayed by an in-
junction from a Federal Court; or the reverse; not because the
Court has no jurisdiction of such a subject between those parties;
but because it could not exercise its jurisdiction in that case, with-