JA.COBS. and others.March 29,1883.)
(Oircuit Oout't, E. D. 1.
BILL. A creditor at large, who has not established his demand at law, cannot maintain a suit in equity, either to set aside a conveyance executed by an insolvent shall stand for a general asdebtor, or obtain a decree that such signme,t,undcr the state statutes, for the benefit of all such debtor's creditors.
SAlIlJ-Jbj:MEDt A'J' LAW.
" A court of equity has no jurisdiction, even. where the demand has. been duly established,if the plaintiff can obtain a full, .complete, and adequate remedy at law. " " .'
"In Eqllity. Demurrer to bill. This is a suit brought by Max against ;J'oseph M. Hayes, Alllelia Jacobs, and Henry Jacobs, 'her husband, "to have a certain instru:rJ;l.entexecuted by the two last-named defendants held and d.ecreed'to be and operate as a. deed of assignment for the benefit of all the creditors of Baid Amelia Jacobs, under the laws of the state of Missouri, and fOr other relief. . The bill·states that said "" J' ". " pur,Ports to be a mortgage of all the separltte estate and property of sald" 4.melia Jacobs, audto httve been for the purpose of se-:-curing a debt due from her to Joseph M. lIayes, the mortgagE!e, and allegesthat at the time said instrument was Jacobs was carrying on business in St. Louis under the name of A. Jacobs, and had a separate estate; that she was insolvent I.md at the time said instrument was executed was indebted to other creditors besides said Hayes, among whom was the defendant, to whom she owed the sum of $1,442.82, as appeared by an itemized account therewith filed. The only question decided by the court was as to its jurisdiction. Patrick & Frank, for plaintiff. D. Goldsmiths, for defendants. TREAT, J. A general demurrer has been interposed, which incan mainvolves two questions: First, whether a creditor" at tain the bill, either to set aside defendants' conveyance or to decree that it shall stand for a general B.ssignment for the benefit of all the creditors; second, if the plaintiff has the proper standing, whether the conveyance in question falls within the provisions of the Missouri statute as to assignments. The counsel have exercised extraordinary diligence in presenting and collating cases on the second point. The questions on that point,.
""RellQrted by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.
if they had to be considered, would involve a review of the many decisions cited, especially those of the supreme court of Missouri, on the Missouri statute. The plaintiff, however, is, by the express averments of his bill, it creditor at large, without a lien or trust upon the property in question, and hence falls within the well-settled rules tha.t his demand must first be established at law; and it must also appear that he has not full, complete, and adequate remedy at law, before he can invoke proceedings in equity. His account is an open one, and it may be if tried at law, where it should be, his demand would fail, or if not in its entirety, to an extent that would reduce the same below the jurisdiction of this court. This court cannot be driven, first, to ascertain whether he has a legal demand which belongs to common-law courts, and thus, having usurped common-law jurisdiction, proceed, after giving what is equivalent to a commonlaw judgment, to enter upon the other or equitable inquiry involved. Without reviewing what are elementary authorities on this point, it must suffice to refer to Oase v. Beauregard, 99 U. S. 119, and 101 U. S. 688. It is obvious that the plaintiff in this case has full redress at law, if he has any demand against the defendants. It is sufficient, however, for the purposes of this demurrer, that he has not, under the allegations of his bill, a canse of action cognizable in equity. The demurrer will be sustained.
MCCRARY, C. J., concurs.
Extradition of WADGE.
(District GOUl·t, S. D. New York. March 27,1883.)
ExTRADITION-AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS.
The authentication of documents in extradition proceedings, which would be received" in similar proceedings" in the demanding country, when aided by oral proof of handwriting, and by proof showing the purpose for which they are issued, is sufficient under seotion 5 of the act of August 3, 1882.
2. SAME-TREATY WITH GREAT BRITAIN.
Under the treaty with Great Britain, the latter is entitled to extradition on evidence of the offense sufficient to justify commitment here. The accused, though entitled to examine witnesses in his defense, is not entitled to a full trial here.
It is not the practice- before committing magistrates to receive the deposi-
tions of foreign witnesses taken abroad on the part of the defense.