ANDBBWS V. BHITH. 845 �United' States against an administrator for an account of the assets and payment of her ehare, ■without making other dis- tributees parties. The bill was demurred to for that cause, and also beeause that, by the laws of the state, ail such mat- ters were required to be settled in the probate courts of the state where the administration was being had. The circuit court dismissed the bill, the oratrix appealed, and the decree ■was reversed. On this point Mr. Justice Davis said : "It can never be indispensable to make defendants of those against whom nothing is alleged, and of whom no relief is asked." �This court ha? been urged, with much persuasiveness, not to retain this bill, on account of a comity towards the state court beyond the effect of the plea. Such comity, if it exists, is not mentioned in the boobe treating upon this subject, so far as has been observed. The decisions referred to, and the language of the courts and judges stated, show that courts of one jurisdiction respect those of another jurisdiction, in taking cognizance of causes, only so far as not to interfere with them or their judgments. If they should withdraw from the bounds of their iurisdiction, and the others should do the same, there might be parties and cases in the spaoe between not reoog- nized by either. It can be no disrespect to either for the other to maintain its own jurisdiction, if it does no more. This court would not trench in the sliglitest degree upon the prerogatives of the state courts, for which it holds the highest respect. No decision which this court can make upon this case, either one way or the other, will do so. That court has no case between these bondholders and their trustees before it, so far as this case shows. It will bave no occasion to de- cide whether the trustees or the bondholders are entitled to these moneys without the bondholders before it. This court has no one but the bondholders and the trustees, or their representatives, before it, and upon this case will have no occasion to decide upon any question exeept between them. These causes — one between the bondholders and their trustees, and the other between the trustees and still other persons — are quite distinct, and may well be pending in different courts. �Demurrer overruled and plea disallowed. ����
