The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-08-25


 
 MT. smith, take it that it Is not disputed and cannot be disputed that this court Is a court of coordinate 1u- risdiction with the chancery or city courts or circuit courts of the State in which the prosecution, if any. would be had: that 1t is a court of superior jurisdiction to that of the ordinary county courts or magisteria1 courts in which the only other prosecutions could be had.
 The Supreme Court of the state of Alabama has said in the very recent case of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company vs. Gray. or Gray vs the Louisville and Nashville Rail road Company-there was double ap- peal-which is now in pamphlet form that when one court has obtained ju- rIsdiction of subject matter, no other court of coordinate Jurisdiction has Jurisdiction of that matter. or can by any proceedings interfere with full determination of the question by the court first taking Jurisdiction. In this case all of the authorities, or large number of them at least in Alabama, are thoroughly reviewed. and it is shown in the opinion of Judge Ander- son that that question is settled be- yond all peradventure in the State of Alabama.
 The question arose there in the most direct way Henry B. Gray had de- manded that the South and North Ala hama RailroaA Company file a bill in chancery against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company for an ac- counting. Tn compliance with that de- mand bill was filed in the City Court of Birmingham. Thereafter, Cray as A stockholder of the South and North Alabama Railroad, making the ordi- nary allegations that the directors of the South and North were elected and dominated and controlled by the Lou isyille and Nashville Railroad Com pany, and that in all that they did as directors of the South and North, they but spoke the will of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, and that they were, therefore, improper people to conduct the litigation for an accounting with the L.. and NJ, filed bin in the City Court of Montgomery against the railroad There was a mo- ton to dismiss that bill for want of equity upon the ground that the City Court of Montgomery had no jurisdic- ton of the case because the chancery at Birmingham had previously obtained such Jurisdiction upon the bill of the South and North. So the question was directly raised as to whether or not when one court had obtained turisdic- 
 court could thereafter obtain jurisdic- tion of that matter or make any or- ders therein. Judge Anderson says:
 what the Court Said.
 Tt must be further observed that the Jefferson County Chancery Court has coordinate Jurisdiction with the Mont srouery City ourt. and Is competent to grant all equitable relief in said city court. When the Jurisdiction of the Chancery Court has once attached, its jurisdiction will not be disturbed by that of another court of equal powers. Troy Co, vs Prestwood, 116 Ala, 119, g S.W., 262. It is an admitted prin- cipIe that. where two courts have an equal and concurrent Jurisdiction, the one that commences the exercise of it's Jurisdiction first has the preference, and is not to be obstructed in the le- gitimate exerise of It's powers by the court that on the subject-matter, would be only co-ordinate.' Eaton vs. Pat terson, Stew, and P. 15. The well established rule is that, in cases where two courts have concurrent jurisdic- tion, the court which first takes cog nixance of the cause retains 1t to the exclusion of the other King vs. smith, Is Ala. 2ss, It may be con ceded as a general rule that. where two courts have concurrent Jurisdiction over the same thing, the one which first possesses the cause has a right 10 proceed with it, and cannot be prchih- ated or restrained by any other Nell son vs. Dunn, is Ala, 514. The law is too we'll settled to be questioned that, where two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, that which first takes cog nizance of the cause has the right to retain it to the exclusion of the other Could vs. Hayes. 19 Ala, 4SS; Gay vs. Brierheld, 94 Ala, sos. When differ ent courts have concurrent jurisdtc- tion. the one before whom proceeding may be first had, and whose jurisdic- ton first attached. must necessarily have authority paramount to the other courts, or rather, the action first com menced shall not be abated by an &C., ton commenced between the same par ties, fin relation to the same subject in the same or any other court Stearns vs. Stearns. 16 Mass, I'll. Tt is the adoption of law too long established to require a citation of authorities that, where a court has Jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause, and that. where the Jurisdiction of the court and the right of a plaintiff to prosecute his suit in it have once attached, that right cannot be arrested or taken away by proceedings in another court. These rules have their foundation, not mere Iy in comity. but on necessity; for if one may enjoin, the other may retort by injunction. and thus the parties be without remedy, being liable for pro- cess for contempt in one if they dare to proceed in the other. The fact, therefore, that an injunction is-