BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND. 573
out bringing itself injuriously in conflict with another tribunal,
with whom it ought not on any account to interfere. Diggs v.
Wolcott, 4 Cran. 179; McKim v. Voorhies 7 Cran. 279.
The two great co-ordinate Courts of equity of England, are the
High Court of Chancery, and the Court of Exchequer. The first
is the prototype of this Court, The Exchequer, as the phrase is,
has two sides; it is a Court of common law, as well as of equity.
It is composed of a plurality of Judges; and is, in all respects, a
term Court; being in these particulars, essentially different from
the Court of Chancery; which is composed of only one Judge, and
is most emphatically, always open. The Exchequer, like our Fede-
ral Circuit Courts, and our State County Courts, is so organized,
that it can exercise scarcely any of its equity powers, except in
term time; and owing to the delays and expense of proceeding
with its equity business only from term to term, the continually
open Chancery Court, has a most decided advantage over the
Exchequer, which, on that account, is almost deserted as a Court
of equity. Crowley's Case, 2 Swan. 11; 1 London Jurist, Art. 7.
In this, and other respects, the analogy between the High Court
of Chancery, and the Court of Exchequer of England, as co-ordi-
nate Courts of equity, and'the High Court of Chancery, and the
County Courts of equity of Maryland, as co-ordinate Courts of
the same description, is so close and striking, that the cases in re-
lation to the conflicts of jurisdiction, between those English Courts,
may be applied as most instructive illustrations of the effects of
any similar clashing between our own co-ordinate Courts of equity.
It is a rule between those English Courts, that where they have
both an entirely concurrent jurisdiction of the same matter, that
* Court is entitled to retain the suit which has been first
commenced. There are some early instances of disputes 604
between those tribunals in which the one has issued its injunction
against the officers of the other. But latterly, there is no instance
of either having enjoined a party from proceeding in the other.
That Court in which the suit has been last instituted, or in which
the proceedings are least comprehensive and perfect, has, in gene-
ral, given way to the other; or forced the parties to betake them-
selves to that Court in which the first suit was instituted, or where
the most perfect proceedings were then depending. But after a
bill to redeem a mortgage has been filed in one Court, a bill to
foreclose may be brought in the other; and a cross-bill may be
filed in Chancery to an original bill in the Exchequer; and so too,
either Court will retain its suit, when the bill in the other has been
dismissed. Vendall v. Harvey, Nelson, 19; Newbury v. Wren, 1
Vern. 220; Nicholas v. Nicholas, Prec. Cha. 546; Coysgarne v. Jones,
Amb. 613; Bullock v. Bullock, 3 8mm. 698; Jackson v. Leaf, Jac.
& Wal. 232; Harrison v. Gurney. 2 Jac. & Wal, 563; Glegg v.
Legh, 4 Mad. 192: Bushby v. Munday, 5 Mad. 297; Parker v. Leigh,
|
![clear space](../../../images/clear.gif) |