The pendency of another suit for the same equitable relief, in another court of co-ordi nate jurisdiction, is a bar to a motion for an injunction ; Cleveland, P. & A. R. Co. v. City of Erie, 27 Pa. 380; and may be pleaded in abatement of an action at law for the same cause ; Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. R. Co., 76 Pa. 481.
In general, the plea must be in abatement ; Hartz v. Com., 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 359; Carr v. Casey, 20 Ill. 637; Rowley v. Williams, 5 Wis. 151; Ex parte Balch, 3 McLean, 221, Fed. Cas. No. 790; Danforth v. R. Co., 93 Ala. 614, 11 South. 60; Central R. & Bank ing Co. v. Coleman, 88 Ga. 294, 14 S. E. 382 ; Mattel v. Conant, 156 Mass. 418, 31 N. E.
487 ; Rogers v. Hoskins, 15 Ga. 276; but in a penal action at the suit of a common in former, the priority of a former suit for the same penalty in the name of a third person may be pleaded in bar, because the party who first sued is entitled to the penalty ; Ander son v. Barry, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 281.
It must be pleaded in abatement of the subsequent action in order of time; Renner v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. (U. S.) 215, 4 L. Ed. 74 ; Carr v. Casey, 20 Ill. 637 ; Rowley v. Williams, 5 Wis. 151; Greenwood v. Rector, 1 Hempst.' 708, Fed. Cas. No. 5,792 ; Hallman v. Buckmaster, 3 Gilm. (Ill.) 498; Buffum v. Tilton, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 510 ; Nicholl v. Ma son, 21 Wend. (N. Y.) 339.
It must show an action pending or judg ment obtained at the time of the plea ; Hixon v. Schooley, 26 N. J. L. 461; Hope v. Alley, 11 Tex. 259 ; but it is sufficient to show it pending when the second suit was commenc ed ; Parker v. Colcord, 2 N. H. 36; Toland v. Tichenor, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 320 ; the court first acquiring concurrent jurisdiction re tains it to the exclusion of the other ; Grif fin v. Birkhead, 84 Va. 612, 5 S. E. 685 ; when both suits are commenced at the same time, the pendency of each may be pleaded in abatement of the other, and both be defeat ed; Davis v. Dunklee, 9 N. H. 545; Beach v. Norton, 8 Conn. 71; Harris v. Linnard, 9 N. J. L. 58; Morton v. Webb, 7 Vt. 124; Mid dlebrook v. Travis, 68 Hun 155, 22 N. Y. Supp. 672; and the plaintiff cannot avoid such a plea by discontinuing the first action subsequently to the plea ; 2 Ld. Raym. 1014 ; Com. v. Churchill, 5 Mass. 174; Frogg's Ex'rs v. Long's Adm'i, 3 Dana (Ky.) 157, 28 Am. Dec. 69 ; contra, Marston v. Lawrance, 1 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 397 ; Ballou v. Ballou, 26 Vt. 673 ; Rogers v. Hoskins, 15 Ga. 270 ; Rush v. Frost, 49 Ia. 183; Findlay v. Beim,
62 Pa. 112 ; Warder v. Henry, 117 Mo. 530, 23 S. W. 776. And a prior suit discontinued before plea pleaded in the subsequent one will not abate such suit; Adams v. Gardi ner, 13 B. Monr. (Ky.) 197 ; Dean v. Massey, 7 Ala. 601; Nichols v. Bank, 45 Minn. 102, 47 N. W. 462 ; nor will it if a nonsuit is en tered nunc pro tune, to make it of a date be fore the commencement of the second action ; Wilson v. Pearson, 102 N. C. 290, 9 S. E. 707. It may be pleaded in abatement of the ac tion in the inferior court, and must aver ap pearance, or at least service of process; 1 Vern. 318. Suing out a writ is said to be sufficient at common law ; Bentley v. Joslin, 1 Hempst. 218, Fed. Cas. No. 18,232. See Lis PEN DENS.
It must be shown that the court entertain ing the first suit has jurisdiction ; Rood v. Eslava, 17 Ala. 430; White v. Whitman, 1 Curt. 494, Fed. Cas. No. 17,561. It is a suffi cient defence that the plaintiff has pleaded the identical claim on which the action was brought as a set-off in a pending suit by the defendant ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. port, 154 Pa. 111, 25 Atl. 890.
It must be proved by the defendant by record evidence ; Fowler v. Byrd, Hempst, 213, Fed. Cas. No. 4,999 a; Com. v. Church ill, 5 Mass. 174; Riddle v. Potter, 1 Cra. C. C. 288, Fed. Cas. No. 11,811. It is said that if the first suit be so defective that no recovery can be had, it will not abate the second; Rogers v. Hoskins, 15 Ga. 270 ; Langham v. Thomason, 5 Tex. 127; Quinebaug Bank v. Tarbox, 20 Conn. 510 ; Downer v. Garland, 21 Vt. 362 ; Cornelius v. Vanarsdallen's Adm'r, 3 Pa. 434.
A prior indictment pending does not abate a second for the same offence ; Dutton v. State, 5 Ind. 533 ; Com. v. Drew, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 279 ; Com. v. Dunham, Thach. Cr. Cas. (Mass.) 513.
When a defendant is arrested pending a former suit or action in which he was held to bail, he will not, in general, be held to bail if the second suit be for the same cause of action; Clark v. Weldo, 4 Yeates (Pa.) 206; under special circumstances, in the discretion of the court, a second arrest will be allowed; Peck v. Hozier, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 347. Pend. ency of one attachment will abate a second in 'the same county ; James v. Dowell, 7 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 333.
See, generally, Gould, Stephen, and Chitty on Pleading ; Story, Mitford, and Beames on Equity Pleading ; Bacon, Abr. Abatement, Bevil in Civil Cases.