BROWN v. WALLACE. 601

with my co-ordinate neighbours, and yet have not been able to do
so upon all occasions; because of the facts of the case not having
been fully disclosed in the first instance. In a case where the
plaintiff merely represented that he had become the debtor of the
defendant by bond, on which judgment had been obtained at law,
without giving him all the credits to which he was equitably enti-
tled; I granted an injunction to stay the proceedings at law. But
on its being clearly shewn by the answer, that the plaintiff at law
was suing there on a bond he had taken as a trustee under a de-
cree of the county court of equity, I not only dissolved the in-
junction, but dismissed the bill with costs, on the ground that the
proceedings upon the bond were properly a branch of a suit de-
pending in another court of equity with whose movements this
court ought not to intermeddle. But on another occasion, when
I had passed a decree for the payment of a sum of money, and
the party had sued out a fieri facias, a county court granted an
injunction to stop the further proceedings upon that fieri facias.
In that case the collision was palpable and direct. I determined,
however, to submit, and without pressing the conflict, which could
have been attended with no good effect, to leave the error to be
corrected by the county court itself.

The recollection of these circumstances, has suggested the pro-
priety of explaining my views upon this subject more fully than
might otherwise have been deemed necessary.

It has been thought by some, that where any one court of com-
petent authority, had in any manner expressed an opinion on a
subject, every other court having no more than a concurrent juris-
diction, was thereby precluded from taking cognizance of the same
matter. But it is believed, that the general rule is not so entirely
comprehensive.

It is certain, that a judgment or decree upon any matter put in
issue between the same parties, in relation to the same subject, is
a complete bar to any subsequent suit for the same matter. So
too, after a suit has been instituted, and is then depending in any
court of competent jurisdiction in this state, though it is not so
with regard to a suit in a foreign court, no other suit can be main-
tained for the same subject between the same parties, (p) And
even if the one suit be brought in a court of common law, and
the other in equity, to prevent such duplicate vexation, the Court

(p) Bowne v. Joy, 9 John, Rep. 221; Walsh v. Durkin, 12 John. Rep. 99.