604 BROWN v. WALLACE.

court is entitled to retain the suit which has been first commenced.
There are some early instances of disputes 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 en-
joined 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 general, given way to the
other; or forced the parties to betake themselves to that court in
which the first suit was instituted, or where the most perfect pro-
ceedings were then depending. But after a bill to redeem a mort-
gage 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 origi-
nal bill in the Exchequer; and so too, either court will retain its
suit, when the bill in the other has been dismissed, (z)

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 any thing 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,

(z) Vendall v. Harvey, Nelson, 19; Newburg v. Wren, 1 Vern. 220; Nicholas v.
Nicholas, Prec. Cha. 546; Coysgarne v. Jones, Amb. 613; Bullock v. Bullock, 3
Swan. 698; Jackson v. Leaf, 1 Jac. & Wal. 232; Harrison v. Gurney,2 Jac. & Wal.
563; Giegg v. Legh, 4 Mad. 192; Bushby v. Munday, 5 Mad. 297; Parker v. Leigh,
6 Mad. 115; Pitcher v. Rigby, 4 Exch. Rep. 30; Myddleton v. Rusbout, 1 Eccles.
Rep. 81; Kibblewhite v. Rowland, 3 Eccles. Rep. 412, note, s. 543; 1 Fowl. Exch.
Pra. 270; 1 Mad. Cha, 128.