574 BROWN v. WALLACE.—2 BLAND.

6 Mad. 115; Pitcher v. Rigby, 4 Exch. Rep. 30; Myddleton v. Bush-
out, 1 Eccles. Rep. 81; Kibblewhite v. Rowland, 3 Eccles, Rep. 412,
note, s. 543; 1 Fowl. Exch. Pra. 270; 1 Mad. Cha. 128.

But there is no instance to be met with in which either one of
the English Courts has ever attempted to hinder or stay any part
of the proceedings in a suit which had been rightfully instituted,
and was then progressing in the other; as by enjoining a trustee
proceeding in the direct execution of a decree; or staying a pro-
ceeding by execution to enforce the payment of money decreed to
be paid; nor has it been ever intimated, that either of those Courts
would call before it the parties to a suit depending in the other to
give an account of acts done under the authority of the other; or
to have the money or property with which the other was dealing,
or which was in the hands of its officers or agents, brought in to
be there disposed of by itself. Yet all this should have been con-
sidered and adjudged as settled and correct, as between those
English Courts in order to sanction, by mere analogous authority,
what appears, by these proceedings, to have been done by the
Harford County Court.

From these proceedings it appears, that there never has been
before that Court any defendant who had in reality anything more
than a bare pro forma interest in the matter in controversy; for I
put out of the question Kent Mitchell of whom the plaintiffs made
no complaint, and did not charge as a party. James Wallace,
* the defendant to these bills, was no more than an agent of
605 this Court, who might have been removed at its pleasure.
He had no interest of his own in the matter. Had he been removed
there would then have been no one against whom that Court could
have proceeded with effect; or had he been permitted to remain,
no decree against him alone could have bound the rights of the
real parties to the original controversy who were no parties to the
bills in Harford County Court. Had James Wallace, as a trustee,
collected any money as the proceeds of the sale he made under
the decree of this Court, that Court could no more have ordered
it to have been brought in and paid over, than it could have taken
money levied and held officially by a sheriff of an adjacent county
under an execution from his own County Court; or money held
officially by the messenger or register of .this Court. Jones v.
Jones, 1 Bland, 461; Alston v. Clay, 2 Hayw. 171. If Harford
County Court could not have exercised powers to the whole of this
extent, it is evident, that the bills which that Court allowed to be
filed, and required to be answered by James Wallace, the trustee
of this Court, should have been dismissed at once.

These proceedings are not only incompatible with, and calculated
to cross and thwart the proceedings of this Court, but they were
absolutely useless, and needlessly troublesome; because it is mani-
fest, that they could have resulted in no effectual relief; and be-