624 FEDERAL REPORTEIt. �in Ireland was overruled in the Bnglisli court of chancery. Certain it is that the plea of a suit pending in equity in a foreign jurisdiction will net abate a suit at law in a domestic tribunal. This was shown in a veiy able decision made by the supreme court of Connecticut in Hatch V. Spofford, 2Z Conn. 485, where the authorities are learnedly and logic- ally reviewed. See, also, 7 Met. (Mass.) 570, and 16 Vt. 234. If, then, a bill in equity pending in a foreign jurisdiction has no eflEect upon an ac- tion at law for the saine cause in a domestic forimi, even when pleaded in abatement ; if, still more, it has tio effect wh.en pleaded to another bill in equity, as the authorities show, — it is impossible to see how it can be a basis for an injunction against prosecuting a suit at law." �This examination of the subject, in the light of the author- ities referred to, points to the conclusion that the defendant's plea cannot be sustained, and renders unnecessary the con- sideration of the other points raised. The arguments made at the hearing, with reference to the rule in cases where aliother tribunal with competent jurisdiction has already in gome *form acquired the oustody of the property or res in liti- gation, are inapplicable. ■ �Unless the decisions upon the subject in the cases of Mal- lett V. Dexter, 1 Curt. 178, and Haines v. Carpenter, 1 Wood, 262, can in some way be referred to this same distinc- tion upon the ground of their being administration suits, they Would appear to be incbnsistent with the two later decisions frbm Gurtis, as well as other authorities herein cited. In Brooks V. Mills ,Co. 4 Dill. 524, Judge Love held the plea bad upon other grounds, and his remarks that the courts, except in Loring v. Marsh, h ad not gone so far as to decide that another suit in a state court in the same district would not be a good answer, would seem to point to a distinction wbich can hardly be considered sound. �The plea is therefore overruled. ��� �
