■92 FEDERAL REPORTER. �court of eqtrity. The complaînant makes the same allega- tions before tbie court, and the only reply I can make to him, Sn the Kght of the law as I find it, is that his case bas been •passed upon by a tribunal having full jurisdiction of the sub- Iject-matter and parties, and although it may be a hardship, .and although he may feel wronged by the conclusions to which ihe court have corne, yet this court cannot now review tbose positions, and attempt, in the face of the adjudications against him, to undo what that court has done in his case. �It may also well be doubted whether the complaisant should be allowed at this late day to corne into this court and ask ifor the relief which he now seeks, after having experimented -with the state courts to the end of the litigation, and in each etage of it been denied the relief which he here demands. If, after the renditibn of the judgments at law, the defendant in these judgments and the complainant here had seen fit to go into the equity side of the United States district court, which court had the control of the assignee in bankruptcy aud could direct what proceedings he should or should not prosecute, and represent the dilemma in which he had been placed by reason of the sickness and death of his attorney, and the dan- ger of his being subjected to the payment of an unjust judg- Tuent, that court might, in the exercise of its equity powers, have inquired into the. equities between the parties and con- sidered ail the claims which the complainant had for relief, and given the complainant such redress as he seemed entitled to ; but this complainant chose his own forum. He acquiesced in the assertion on the part of the assignee that the state courts had jurisdiction of the persons and the subject-matter, and chose to litigate the questions involved in the controversy in that forum; aud now, having been worsted in that encoun- ter, he should not be heard in this court to review or examine into, or reverse the adverse rulinga there made against him. �The demurrer to the bill ia, therefore, sustained, and the bill dismissed for want of equity. ����
