Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/483

 SILL V. SOLBERG. 471 �agamst the proposition that the present bill shows no grounds for recourse to equity. In the cases cited in support oi the demurrer, the question of the right to equitable relief arose in various forms, and from them ail this sammarized state- ment of the law may be dedueed : that -whenever a court of law is competent to take cognizance of a right, and bas power to proceed to a judgment which affords a plain, adequate, and complete remedy, without the aid of a court of' equity, the plaintiff must proceed at law, because the defendant bas a constitutional right to a trial by jury. Hipp v. Balin, 19 How. 278. �The case most nearly parallel to this, cited in support of the demurrer, is Garrison v. Markley, 7 N. B. E. 246, which was a bill to recover the value of a stock of goods alleged to have been transferred by the bankrupts to the defendant, a creditor, with a view to give him a preference, in fraud of the bankrupt law, and in which it was held that the remedy at law was plain and adequate, and jurisdiction in equity was therefore declined. That case, it is to be observed, involved only the recovery of the value of property which the creditor had directly received from the bankrupt. That was ail there was of it, and therefore trover was a suitable and complete remedy. The present bill, as we shall see, discloses some features not present in Garrison v. Markley. �In many of the cases referred to by counsel for the oom- plainant the question of equitable jurisdiction was notdireotly raised, and was therefore only impliedly decided. In some of these cases, and in others where the question arose for dis- tinct adjudication, it was sought to set aside conveyances of land, or mortgages on personal property, or transfers of secu- rities, and none of them are directly in point as parallel cases to the present; though it would seem that Flandersv.Abbey, 6 Biss. 16, is a case which, if it is to be regarded as authori- tative in its f uU extent, would support jurisdiction in equity, even upon such a state of facts as existed in Garrison t. Markley, supra. �Cady V. Whaling, 7 Biss. 430, was a bill to reaoh property transferred by the bankrupt to hia wife, and involved the ��� �