SILIi V. SOLBERG. 47-3 �tions, and, in view of the exceptions, Judge Story, in speaking of cases involving fraud, states the rule in this language : "It may, therefore, be said that the concurrent jurisdiction of equity extends to ail cases of legal rights where, under the circumstances, there is not a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law." So, also, it may be that, as to the debt for $1,333.16 due from the defendant to the bankrupts, and for ■which he gave them his note, an action at law would lie to recover the amount of that debt as if no note were given, and as if the debt remained unpaid, Indeed, it seems quite clear that, if the note -was given and used to enable the defendant to secure protection against his liability on the note held by the bank, and thereby to get a forbidden preference, an action at law to recover the original debt owing by him to the bank- rupts would be an ample remedy, if the transaction makea him liable in any form of action. But, according to the bill, the alleged fraudulent purchase of the stock, and the giving of the note for $1,333.16, do not constitute the entire sub- ject-matter of the action. It is cbarged, as we have seen, that certain moneys of the bankrupts, and certain promissory notes held by them against third parties, were also applied on the bank indebtedness, for which the defendant was con- tingently liable ; and it is alleged that the appropriation of these assets was made in pursuance of a scheme entered into between the defendant and the bankrupts. This means that it was arrangea between those parties that the assets of the bank- rupts should be exclusively applied in payment of the one debt owing to the bank, instead of applying them pro rata upon ail the liabilities of the firm ; and the bill seeks to charge the de- fendant with the moneys and assets thus used, because of his alleged participation in the transaction. Is there not shown in this phase of the case grounds for equitable relief, if the defendant is chargeable in any proceeding whatever? The question, I think, must be answered in the affirmative ; for it is not perceived howthe defendant could be made answerablein an action at law for the alleged fraudulent appropriation of the moneys which the bankrupts had in hand, and the notes which they held against third parties. Those moneys did ��� �
