Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/484

 472 FEDKRAIi REPORTER. �avoidance of a voidable legal title in the wife. A part of the propertyin eontroversy consisted of policies of life Insurance, and the peculiar features of the case, when taken together, were such as to make it quite apparent that a recourse to equity was the only effective remedy. �None of the cases cited on either side disclose such simi- larity to the case made by the present bill as to make them applicable, except as they enunciate general principles. This demurrer must, therefore, be decided by applying the general rules or principles relating to equity jurisdiction to the facts alleged in the bill. If equity declines to take cognizance of this case, it is beeause the remedy at law is plain, adequate, and complete. Such remedy must be plain, for if it be doubt- ful and obscure at law, equity will assert a jurisdiction. It must be adequate, for if at law it falls short of what the party is entitled to, that founds a jurisdiction in equity. And it must be complete ; that is, it must attain the fuU end and jus- tice of the case. 1 Story, Eq. Juris. § 33. If the transaction in question was attended by or bas given rise to circumstancea on account of which a judgment at law will fall short of doing full and complete justice between the parties, or on account of which there is difficulty in reaching the full merits of the case under the rules of law, or where there is even a reason- able doubt as to the remedy at law being plain, adequate, and complete, equity will always take and retain jurisdiction. Garrison v. Markley, supra. To these general rules may be added another, which is that if there are grounds for equita- ble relief as to part of the substantial matters set out in the bill, equity will take cognizance of the whole. �If the entire subject-matter of the suit consisted of the sale and transfer to the defendant of the bankrupt's stock of merchandise, the remedy at law would undoubtedly be ade- quate and complete ; for the goods were delivered direetly to the defendant. They came to his hands, and were converted by him, and trover would lie for their value. In such case it would not do to say that, beeause fraud was involved, the jurisdiction of a court of equity might be invoked concurrently with that of a court of law. That rule is subjeot to excep- ��� �