BROOKS VS. DELAPLAINE. 351

Lynch, 1 Johns. Ch. Rep., 370. And it being perfectly clear
in this case that Beard never was, and the complainant is not
now, in a condition to perform his part of the contract, the re-
lief asked for, must on that account be refused.

Upon the whole, I am of opinion, that the injunction must
be dissolved, the ne pxeat discharged, and the bill dismissed.

[No appeal was taken from this decree.]

CHAUNCY BROOKS ET AL.

vs. DECEMBER TERM, 1848.
JOHN DELAPLAINE ET AL.

[CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT Of CHANCERY AND THE COUNTY
COURTS.]

THB appearance of the defendants to the bill, and their submitting to answer

it, would be a waiver of any objection to the jurisdiction of the eourt.
The power of the county courts, within the boundaries assigned them, are

equal, in every respect, to the powers of the Court of Chancery.
When two courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the same subject matter,

the court, in which the suit is first commenced, is entitled to retain it.
This rule is vital to the harmonious movement of the courts; and, any other

would, unavoidably, lead to perpetual collisions, and be productive of the

most calamitous results.

[On the 28th of March, 1844, John Delaplaine, of CarroII
county, executed to Wm. P. Maulsby, a deed of trust of all his
property for the benefit, firstly of certain of his creditors there-
in mentioned, and after the payment of their claims, for the be-
nefit of all other persons having any demands against him. In
the month of August following, said Delaplaine applied for the
benefit of the insolvent laws of Maryland, and the said William
P. Maulsby was appointed his permanent trustee; and in the
month of October, 1846, a bill was filed on the equity side of
Frederick County Court by Basil Norris, one of the preferred
creditors, against said Delaplaine, and Maulsby, for an account
of the trust fund of the said Maulsby, and for an adjudication