ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL 14 ABATEMENT AND REVIVAL no ground for abatement of an action at law, that a suit in equity is pending between the same parties for the same money where the result of the action at law may be re quired to perfect the decree in equity; Kit tredge v. Race, 92 U. S. 116, 23 L. Ed. 488. Prior pendency of an action unless both are in the same jurisdiction is not cause for abatement; O'Reilly v. R. Co., 16 R. I. 388, 17 AU. 171, 906, 19 Atl. 244, 5 L. R. A. 364, 6 L. R. A. 719 ; Stanton v. Embry, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed. 983. It must be the same cause, founded on the same facts, between the same parties, for the same rights and the same relief ; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 679, 20 L. Ed. 666; Marchand v. Frellsen, 105 U. S. 423, 26 L. Ed. 1057; Spencer v. Johnston, 58 Neb. 44, 78 N. W. 482 ; Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 106 La. 583, 31 South. 131; Richardson v. Opelt, 60 Neb.' 180, 82 N. W. 377. Pendency of suit in a state court is no ground for a plea in abatement to a suit upon same cause in a Federal court; Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Ins. Co., 61 Fed. 199; Piquignot v. R. Co., 16 How. (U. S.) 104, 14 L. Ed. 863; and see Gordon v. Gilfoil, 99 U. S. 168, 25 L. Ed. 383 ; but see Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 136, 10 L. Ed. 95; Hunt v. Cotton Ex change, 205 U. S. 322, 27 Sup. Ct. 529, 51 L. Ed. 821; Barnsdall v. Waltemeyer, 142 Fed. 415, 73 C. C. A. 515; Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 135 Fed. 650, 68 O. C. A. 288; Bar ber Asphalt Pay. Co. v. Morris, 132 Fed. 945, 66 C. O. A. 55, 67 L. R. A. 761; City of Mankato v. Paving Co., 142 Fed. 329, 73 C. C. A. 439; Gamble v. City of San Diego, 79 Fed. 487; but the latter court will stay pro ceedings until the other suit is determined; Zimmerman v. So Relle, 80 Fed. 417, 25 C. C. A. 518 ; Bunker Hill & S. Mining & C. Co. v. Mining Co., 109 Fed. 504, 47 C. C. A. 200; or compel an election; Insurance Co. v. Brune, 96 U. S. 588, 24 L. Ed. 737. Pend ency of prior suit in one state cannot be pleaded in abatement of suit for same cause and between same parties in another state; Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Earl, 56 Minn 390, 57 N. W. 938; Renner v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 215, 4 L. Ed. 74; nor is a libel of a vessel, under the Chinese Exclusion Act, for smuggling opium, barred by a prior libel for similar offenses in another Federal (court; The Haytian Republic, 154 U. S. 118, 14
Sup. Ct. 992, 38 L. Ed. 930. Pendency of a suit in a foreign country between the same parties and for same cause would not bar or abate an action; Insurance Co. v. Brune, 96 U. S. 588, 24 L. Ed. 737; Stanton v. Embry, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed. 983, 42 L. R. A. 449, note; Crossman v. Rubber Co., 60 N. Y. Sup er. Ct. • 68, 16 N. Y. Supp. 609 ; Harvey v. R. Co., 50 Minn. 405, 52 N. W. 905, 17 L. R. A. 84 ; North British Mercantile Ins. Co. v. Bank, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 293, 22 S. W. 992. A good answer to plea in abatement of pend ency of prior suit, is that such action has been dismissed since trial of second action began; Moore v. Hopkins, 83 Cal. 270, 23 Pac. 318, 17 Am. St. Rep. 248; Nichols v. Clark, 45 Minn. 102, 47 N. W. 462; Warder v. Hen ry, 117 Mo. 530, 23 S. W. 776; Clark v. Corn ford, 45 La. Ann. 502, 12 South. 763.
Privilege of defendant from being sued may be pleaded in abatement ; Marr v. John son, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.) 1; Bac. Abr. Abt. C. See PRIVILEGE. A peer of England cannot, as formerly, plead his peerage in abatement of a writ of summons; 2 Wm. IV. ch. 39. It is a good cause of abatement that the de fendant was arrested at a time when be was privileged from arrest ; Hubbard v. Sanborn, 2 N. H. 468; Legrand v. Bedinger, 4 T. B. Monr. (Ky.) 539; or that he was served with process when privileged from suits; Van Al styne v. Dearborn, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 586; Hal sey v. Stewart, 4 N. J. L. 366; Greening v. Sheffield, Minor (Ala.) 276 ; but a statute al lowing such plea applies not to persons im providently arrested, but only to the privi leged classes ; Bank of Vergennes v. Barker, 27 Vt. 243. The privilege of defendant as member of the legislature has been pleaded in abatement ; King v. Coit, 4 Day (Conn.) 129 ; but the privilege of a non-resident wit ness cannot be; Wilkins' Adm'r v. Brock, 79 Vt. 57, 64 Atl. 232.
For cases where the defendant may plead non-tenure, see Archb. C. P. 310; Cro. Eliz. 559; Manning v. Laboree, 33 Me. 343.
Where he may plead a disclaimer, see Archb. C. P.; Com. Dig. Abt. F, 15; Mills v. Peirce, 2 N. H. 10.