case earl of Newburg versus wren eoden die in court Lord keeper Eq can ab pl  pl S c after a bill bring in the exchequer to foreclose the defendant may  bring a bill in this court to redeem and the pendency of the former suit be  not pleadable the plaintiff bill be to foreclose the defendant and the  defendant plead that he have already exhibit a bill against the now plaintiff  in the exchequer to redeem to which bill the defendant there the now plaintiff  have answer and the subject matter of that suit be the same with the plaintiff  bill in this court the defendant plead the pendency and priority of the former  suit in the exchequer in bar to the plaintiff bill here and for the plea it be  argue by the solicitorgeneral and other that this bill here be but in the  nature of a cross bill to that in the exchequer which the now plaintiff may  have exhibit there and then one account of the profit will have serve for all  and it be vexatious in the plaintiff to bring the same matter in issue in  another court at the same time and if the deputy remembrancer in the exchequer  shall take the account one way and a master here shall take it another it will  breed confusion and if this court shall be of a opinion that there ought to be  no redemption and the exchequer shall decree a redemption the jurisdiction  will clash and therefore to avoid Vernon chancery case these inconvenience  priority of suit ought to give jurisdiction to the exchequer but the Lord  keeper overrule the plea and say this court must deny justice to none and a  plaintiff have a liberty to commence his suit in what court he think fit and  the chancery be the high court of equity and though the exchequer be a ancient  court of equity yet the same be but a private court and its jurisdiction  proper be only for get in the king revenue and for the king officer and they  ought to keep within their proper bind so of the duchy court attorneygeneral v  Vernon all post vide Inst cap p and if there shall happen any of the  inconvenience mention by Mr solicitor there be several precedent that  injunction have go to the exchequer in such case so party restrain in this  court from set up decree of court of exchequer barnesley v Powel ves and the  plaintiff counsel urge the case be much strong for the defendant wren have buy  one doily title and doily title be from one ball who have former exhibit his  bill to redeem in this court and upon hear his bill be dismiss so that in  truth this court be first possess of the cause and this dismission be  afterward plead in the exchequer and doily be privy to it but the court of  exchequer disallow the plea Lord keeper declare his opinion to be that in any  case if the mortgagor exhibit a bill to redeem in the exchequer that the  defendant there shall be at liberty to exhibit a bill to foreclose in this  court and overrule the plea and order the defendant to pay cost nothing say of  cost in the register book Reg lib a fol so after two issue direct out of the  exchequer and bill dismiss yet a original bill may be bring in chancery for  the same matter anon Ch can vide coysgarne v Jones Amb where after bill file  and decree have in exchequer by certain creditor a bill be file in chancery by  other creditor which be entertain on the ground that decree in the exchequer  be not complete but after a decree in the exchequer and affirm in dom proc  chancery refuse to entertain a suit jay all v brain Eq can ab pl and in the  case of a extent from the crown chancery will not examine the quantum of the  king debt brown v Trant post vol as to the interference of chancery where  extent in aid out of the exchequer vide Capel v brewer post and case cite in  not there where there be a original bill in the exchequer a crossbill may be  file in chancery Parker v leigh mad see also Jackson v leaf I W Vernon  chancery case er p