
    JOHN M’KIM, ET ALS vs. ALEXANDER FULTON, ET ALS.
    In this case a record was produced from the court of chancery, in a district of Virginia, between the same parties, and for the same cause from which it appeared, the chancellor had ordered, that upon the defendants there giving security to the amount of the claim of the plaintiff, that the attachment should be dissolved, which was accordingly given. A similar order had formerly been made in this cause as to dissolving the injunction against the defendants and their debtors in this state, which however had not been complied with. Upon producing the record from Virgina,
    Whiteside moved to dissolve, insisting, that as security had been given in Virginia the plaintiffs were safe, and it would be cruel, to enjoin the defendants in this state ; that as insolvency in the debtors of the defendants, would probably take place, they ought to have an opportunity of collecting their mercantile debts.
    Overton, j. The suit in Virginia is not yet determined ; if it were, so that the plaintiffs were secure, this court would dissolve, but for this court to pin their faith to the sleeve of any other Court, cannot be done.—We cannot tell what the chancellor in Virginia may decree, nor has this court any control over him; & perhaps the cause there may go off upon some incidental point. The plaintiffs have justice on their side, and so long as the means are within our power, we will see that they get it. If the defendants will give security here, that the security in Virginia, shall be ultimately responsible in the suit there to the plaintiffs demand, we have no objection; otherwise the injunction must stand.
    Aninjunction here willnot be dissolved on its appearing that the defendant has given security to perform the decree of a court in another state, in a suit between the same parties, and for the same cause of action.
    Campbell and Scott for the plaintiffs.
    Upon the coming in of the answer to the amended bill, it appeared that since the former bill, all the debts due from the late firm of Fulton and Davis were paid except $8000.
   Camphell, J.

Since the case was before the court upon a motion to dissolve, upon reflection he was convinced he had been in an error, and that he should therefore now, give his opinion, that the injunction should be dissolved.

Overton, J.

Upon security being given for the $8000 admitted to be due, the injunction may be dissolved but not otherwise. The defendants relied upon 4 Bac. 603. Tit. merchant and merchandize letter c. 1 Vez. 239.3 P. Wms. 24.2 Vernon 706.

Note.—The injunction was afterwards, dissolved, absente Overton, j. ut. audivi.  