
    Rogers against Vosburgh.
    
      August 5th.
    
    Where the plaintiff has brought a suit át law, and obtained a judgment,, and, at the same titae, filed his bill against the defendant, in this Court, for the same matter, the Court, on the coming in of the answer, will put him to his election, either to proceed at law, under the judgment, or in the suit brought in this Court; and if he elects to proceed at law, the bill will be dismissed with costs; but if he elects to proceed in this Court, he will be enjoined from taking any step under the judgment, without the leave of this Court.
    ON the coming in of the answer, J. Radcliff, for the defendant, moved to dissolve the injunction heretofore issued in this cause, restraining' the defendant from further inter-meddling with the concerns of a periodical publication, entitled, “ The JYew-York City-Hall Recorderand he also further moved, to restrain the plaintiff from proceeding at íaw on the judgment entered up in the Supreme Court, mentioned in the pleadings as being taken as liquidated damages, for the same matter now in controversy, and by way of collateral security.
    
      Rogers, in propia persona, contra.
   The following order, putting the party to his election, was entered:

“ Ordered, that the motion for dissolving the injunction be denied, and that the plaintiff, within eight days after notice of this decretal order, elect whether he will proceed at law under the said judgment, or in this Court, in this suit; and that if he elects to proceed at law, the bill shall thereafter stand dismissed with costs; and if he elects to proceed here, it is then further ordered, that he proceed no further by execution, or otherwise, on the judgment) withotit the leave of this Court first had and obtained,” &c. 
      
      
         Vide 1 Ves. & Beam. 382,3. 7 Taunt. 236. the like rule in such cases.
     