
    Moses Greenwood and Thomas E. Adams, plaintiffs, vs. Henry M. Rector, defendant.
    1. After the institution of a suit in this court against a defendant, a garnishment subsequently sued out against him in a State court cannot affect it, nor- be plead as a defence to the action.
    2. If jurisdiction has once attached, it cannot be divested or impaired by matter occurring subsequently.
    April, 1855.
    Assumpsit on a bill of exchange, before the Hon. Peter V. Daniel, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Hon. Daniel Ringo, district judge.
    The defendant plead that since the institution of this suit, a writ of garnishment had been sued out of the Pulaski circuit court of the State of Arkansas and sefved on him, in respect to the same debt mentioned in the declaration, which was still pending, and prayed to be discharged from this suit; to which plea the plaintiffs demurred, on the ground that this suit having been just commenced in this court could not be defeated by any subsequent proceeding in a State court.
    
      S. II. Hempstead, for the plaintiffs.
    
      Henry M. Rector, in proper person.
   Daniel, J.

It would certainly be an extraordinary procedure if an action in this court could be defeated by a subsequent proceeding in a State court. Such a pretension cannot be tolerated» The jurisdiction of this court, and the right of the plain-, tiffs to prosecute their suit therein, having attached, that right certainly cannot be arrested or taken away by any proceedings in another court; for the effect of such a practice would be to produce collision in the jurisdiction of courts, that would embarrass the administration of justice. State courts can no more interfere in our business and proceedings than we can in theirs. The plea cannot be allowed and the demurrer to it must be sustained. Judgment for plaintiffs. 
      
       Where the suit in one court is commenced prior to the institution of proceedings under attachment in another, such proceedings cannot arrest the suit. Wallace v. M’Connell, 13 Peters, 151. The commencement of another suit for the same cause of action in the court of another State, since the last continuance, cannot be pleaded in abatement of the original suit. A subsequent suit may be abated by the allegation of the pendency of a prior one; but the converse of the proposition, in personal actions, is never true. Resever v. Marshall, 1 Wheat. 215 ; Collins v. Hanna, 5 Johns. 101; Haight v. Holley, 3 Wendell, 262.
      A suit having been commenced in the circuit court of the United States is not abated by a subsequent sitit in the State court by attachment against the defendant in the first suit who is summoned as garnishee. Jurisdiction having vested in the circuit court it cannot be divested by any subsequent proceeding, in a State court. Campbell v. Emerson, 2 McLean, C. C. R. 30.
     