e.70 FEDERAL REPORTER. �of releasing the defendant from his liability on the $5,000 note, and for his beneiit, and it is further averred that ail the acte before recited were done in pursuance of a fraudaient combination and arrangement between the defendant and one of the bankrupts to give the defendant a preference over the general creditors of the firm. Suitable allegations are also made of the insolvency of the bankrupts at the time of these transactions, and that the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that they were then insolvent, and knew that the transfers and payments were made in fraud of the bankrupt law ; and the prayer of the bill is tha;t the sale and transfer of the stock of merchandise to the defendant, and the payment and transfer of the assets before mentioned to the bank, for his benefit, be declared void and set aside, as between the complainant and defendant, and that he be deprived of ail benefit arising to him therefrom. Also that he be charged. with the value of the assets so transferred and paid for his use and benefit, and be decreed to repay the same ; that an account be taken of the value of the merchandise ; that th& defendant be charged with the excess of such value over what he paid therefor, and that he be decreed to pay the same ta complainant. �The bill is demnrred to on two grounds: (1) That com- piamant's remedy is at law ; (2) that upon the allegations oi the bill the complainant is not entitled to the relief he seeks. �1. It is contended by counsel for the defendant that this bill is in substance a declaration, in case that no discovery is Bought, that no such account is needed as involves the exer- cise of equity jurisdiction, and that, in short, the bill contains- no allegations disclosing a necessity for resorting to a court of equity. It is provided by statute of the United States (section 723, Eev. St.) that "suits in equity shall not be sus- tained in either of the courts of the United States in any case where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy may be had at law." This is merely deolaratory of the pre-existing rule. Parker v. Cotton & Wool Go. 2 Black, 545. Many authorities were cited by counsel on the argument in support of and ��� �
