GBAY V. BECK. 597 �is alleged the bankrupt gave to the defendant to place it for his own use beyond the reacli of creditors. It was doubtless a fraudaient aet, if committed, but courts of law have a con- current jurisdiction with courts of equity m many matters of fraud; and, in ail cases where concurrent jurisdiction exists, the party seeking relief must corne into the courts of law if he bas a plain, adequate, and complete remedy for the wrong complained of. After the expense and delay to which the parties have been subjected in the suit, I have endeavored to find some tenable ground upon which I could stand and retain the case for adjudication, but have failed in the effort. The prayer of the bill is that the defendant Beck may be decreed to pay to the complainants the sum of $2,000, which the bankrupt put into his hands to eonceal from his creditors, and the'further sum of $54 for the barrel of wine deposited with ' him for a like purpose, — a naked legal demand for the payment of money frrongfuUy appropriated and withheld,-^ and for the value of personal chattels fra'udulently transferred. There are no features or aspe^its of the' case which would seem to authorize or justify an equitable action. The complain- ants have not even the excuse of oeekingia discovery bf any- thing, for they expressly waive an answer under oath. �I am, therefore, constrained to di'smiss the bill for want of jurisdiction in equity; but inasmuch as the defendant is in fault for not raising the objection in the pleadings, it is dis- missed without costs to the defendant. �NoTB. laee SiU v. Solberg, ante, 468. ��� �
