AUTER ACTION PENDANT (L. Fr. an other action pending). A plea that another action is already pending. It may be made either at law or in equity ; Story, Eq. Pl. § 736. The second suit must be for the same cause; 2 Dick. 611; Russell v. Alvarez, 5 Cal. 48; Hixon v. Schooley, 26 N. J. L. 461; Clark v. Tuggle, 18 Ga. 604; Ballou v. Bal lou, 26 Vt. 673 ; Merritt v. Richey, 100 Ind. 416; but a writ of error may abate a suit on the judgment; Jenkins v. Pepoon, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 312; and if in equity, for the same purpose; 2 M. & C. Ch. 602 ; see Hart v. Granger, 1 Conn. 154; and in the same right; Story, Eq. Pl. § 739. The criterion by which to decide whether two suits are for the sanie cause of action is, whether the evi dence, properly admissible in the one, will support the other ; Steam Packet Co. v. Brad ley, 5 Cr. C. C. 393, Fed. Cas. No. 13,333. See Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 679, 20 L. Ed. 666.
The suits must be such that the same judgment may be rendered in both ; Buffum v. Tilton, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 510. They must be between the 'same parties; Hall v. Hol combe, 26 Ala. 720; Adams v. Gardiner, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 197; Langham v. Thomason, 5 Tex. 127; in person or interest; Bennett v. Chase, 21 N. H. 570; Hartz v. Com., 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 359; Anderson v. Barry, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 281. The parties need not be precisely the same; Rowley v. Wil liams, 5 Wis. 151.
A suit for labor is not abated by a subse quent proceeding in rein to enforce a lien ; Delahay v. Clement, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 201. A suit in trespass is temporarily barred by a previous proceeding in rem to enforce a for feiture under laws of United States; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 314, 4 L. Ed. 381.
The prior action must have been in a doinestic 4 Ves. Ch. 357; Bowne v. Joy, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 221; Lyman v. Brown, 2 Curt. C. C. 559, Fed. Cas. No. 8,627; Hatch v. Spofford, 22 Conn. 485, 58 Am. Dec. 433 ; Drake v. Brander, 8 351; U. S. v. Cruik shank, 92 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed. 588 ; Allen v. Watt, 69 Ill. 655; Yelverton v. Conant, 18 j N. H. 123 ; see Newell v. Newton, 10 Pick. (Mass.) 470; Smith v. Lathrop, 44 Pa. 326, 84 Am. Dec. 448 ; Salmon v. Wootton, 9 Dana
(Ky.) 422; Chattanooga, R. & C. R. Co. v. Jackson, 86 Ga. 676, 13 S. E. 109; but a for eign attachment against the same subject matter may be shown; Embree v. Hanna, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 101; see Winthrop v. Carl ton, 8 Mass. 456; Morton v. Webb, 7 Vt. 124 ; Sargent v. Granite Co., 3 Misc. 325, 23 N. Y. Supp. 886; Harvey v. R. Co., 50 Minn. 405, 52 N. W. 905, 17 L. R. A. 84 ; but it will not avail where there was no appearance in the attachment suit or no personal service on the party attached; Douglass v. Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 209, 33 N. E. 938, 20 L. R. A. 118, 34 Am. St. Rep. 448 ; and of the same character ; 22 Eng. L. & Eq. 62; Story, Eq. Pl. 736; thus a suit at law is no bar to one in equity ; Peak v. Bull & Co., 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 428; Bolton v. Landers, 27 CaL 104; nor is the pendency of a bill in equity a bar to an ac tion at law ; Mattel v. Conant, 156 Mass. 418, 31 N. E. 487; Blanchard v. Stone, 16 Vt. 234; unless there be concurrent jurisdiction ; 22 Law Rep. 74; but the plaintiff may elect, and equity will enjoin him from proceeding at law if he elect to proceed in equity; 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. § 4; Bisp. Eq. § 363; but he will not be required to such case, un less the suit at law is for the same cause, and the remedy at 1kw is co-extensive, and equally beneficial with the remedy in equity. A suit in the circuit court having jurisdiction will abate a suit in the state court, if in the same state ; Walsh v. Durkin, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 99; Smith v. Ins. Co., 22 N. H. 21; and so will a suit in a state court abate one in a United States circuit court; Earl v. Ray mond, 4 McLean, 233, Fed. Cas. No. 4,243 ; but not unless jurisdiction is shown ; White v. Whitman, 1 Curt. C. C. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,561; Ex parte Balch, 3 McLean, 221, Fed. Cas. No. 790; Wadleigh v. Veazie, 3 Sumn. 165, Fed. Cas. No. 17,031; and not unless the suit is pending for the same cause, and be tween the same parties, in the same state in which the circuit court is sitting; Stan ton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 548, 23 L. Ed. 983 ; Brooks v. Mills County, 4 Dill. 524, Fed. Cas. No. 1,955.