Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/535

 LATHAM V. CHAFEB. 523 �The same doctrine is laid down in the case of Lyman v. �BroMJw, 2 Curt. 559., �In Loring t. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 322, 323, the court (CUffordt �J.) says: �" The undeviating rule in this circuit lias been that the pendency of another action for the same cause in a state court is not a good plea in ahate- ment. » * * The same rule is established in most of the states." �After referring to cases where expressions uiay he found �which may seem in conflict with this rule, the learned judge �observes : �" None of these cases, however, decide the question under considera- tion, and I am of the opinion that the pendency of a suit in the state court cannot bc pleaded in bar or abatement to a suit between the same parties in this court." , �The same doctrine is maintained in the supreme court of �the United States. In Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. B. 554, the �court express themselves as follows : �" Still it is insisted by the defendant in error that the pendency of a prior suit in another jurisdiction is not a bar to a subsequent suit in a cir- cuit (iourt, or in the court below, even though the two suits are for the same cause of action, and the court here coneur* in that proposition. Re- peated attempts to maintain the negative of that proposition have been made, and it must be admitted that such attempts have been successful in a few jurisdictions ; but the great weight of authority is the other way." �And, again, in Gordon v. G'dfoil, 99 U. S- 178, decided in �the supreme court at the October term 1878, this language �is used: �" But it bas been frequently held that the pendency of a suit in a state court is no ground even for a plea in abatement to a suit upon the same matter in a federal court." �That the general rule in equity causes is the same, cannot be doubted. The case of Loring v. Marsh, before referred to, was of this character. �In the case of Insurance Go. v. Burnes' Assignee, 96 U. S. 593, the supreme court lay down the rule at follows : �" The rule in equity is analogous to the rule at law. Story, Eq. PI. } 741. In Poster v. Vassall, 3 Atk. 587, Lord Hardwicke said : ' The gen- erai rule of courts of equity, with regard to pleas, is the same as in courts of law, but exercised with a more liberal discretion.' In Lord Billonv. Alvarcs, 4 Ves. 357, a plea of a pending suit in a court of chancery ��� �