case coysgarne against jones bill by creditor in the court of exchequer and  decree other creditor bring a bill in chancery for the same purpose and the  court decree the account c say that the decree in these exchequer be not  complete see earl of Newburgh v wren vern novas v dorrien mad Jackson v leaf  James W Reynolds v Pitt Ves law v Riaby bro c c more v battie Ambl iib Reg a  foe a in chancery that and that Nov sir William foul be entitle as tenant in  tail to a real estate of about pound ayear charge with portion to his sister  by his father marriage settlement and also subject to a mortgage suffer a  recovery and make his will and thereby direct his estate to be sell for  payment of his debt a bill be bring in the court of exchequer by two or three  creditor on behalf of themselves and the other creditor and a decree obtain  for take account of debt and sale of the real estate several other creditor  bring another bill in this court for the same purpose and the cause come on to  be hear it be object that the court ought not to make a decree but send the  plaintiff to come in under the decree in the exchequer that such a decree will  be attend with great expense to the estate and inconvenience to the party that  court of equity ought to take notice of decree make in each court and not to  make a second decree when one be already have in another which will answer the  end that the different court may be of different opinion the master of the  different court may differ in the balance of account different sale will be  direct book and paper will be order to be produce in each court all which will  be attend with very great inconvenience it be admit that every creditor ambler  have a right to prosecute his own demand and that different decree have be  make for satisfaction of creditor by the same court but in that case none of  the inconvenience happen which will in case of different decree in different  court for the plaintiff it be argue that the right which every creditor have  to prosecute his own demand entitle he to a decree that the inconvenience be  not so great as represent or if they be it be unavoidable the creditor be not  to lose his right because the court may differ in opinion if the account be  take right the balance will be the same in both court that when the estate be  sell under one of the decree the party will not attempt to sell it under the  other because it will be fruitless that the book and paper may be produce in  both court that in this case the decree in the exchequer be not complete  because there be a question in the cause respect the quantum of the portion  which be the first charge upon the estate and the ambler er p court of  exchequer have not determine that question nor can they for want of have  proper party before the court in that cause to litigate it Lord Henley  chancellor give no formal opinion but throw out that the decree in the  exchequer be not complete and proceed to hear the cause