WHITE VS. WHITE. 55

bill, which, he insists, presents a case cognizable at law—and
secondly, upon the act of limitations as a bar to the relief ask-
ed for.

The Chancellor is of opinion, that either of these defences is
fatal to the complainant's right to recover in this court.

There is not certainly upon the face of the bill a single aver-
ment to show that the conrplainants would encounter any ob-
stacle in a proceeding in a court of law to recover the proceeds of
the sales of this stock. Whether the defendant John C. White
is himself to be regarded as the purchaser, or as the agent to
sell and account to the plaintiffs for the proceeds of the sales,
(and there is some ambiguity in the allegations of the bill upon
this point,)—still the legal remedy, in either aspect, is com-
plete and ample, without the aid of a court of equity. The
bill presents the case of a single transaction of the sale of
stock, the particulars of which seem to have been known to the
complainants, or of which the proof was entirely within their
reach, without having recourse to the conscience of the defend-
ant. As between him and them there was unquestionably no
such trust as would bring the case within the exclusive juris-
diction of a court of equity. The charge, is, not that this
stock was held by the defendant John C. White in trust for
these complainants, but that it was so held by Joseph White,
and that the transfer and sale was made in virtue of an authori-
ty derived from him.

Why then, if John C. White is liable at all, could not a re-
covery be had against him in a court of law ? There is no com-
plication in the accounts which requires the aid of a court of
chancery to unravel—no discovery from the defendant to estab-
lish the facts upon which the recovery must be founded; nor
does the bill profess to place the jurisdiction of the court upon
that footing. Nor is there any thing in the relation of these
parties, as trustee and cestui que trust, which places the trans-
actions between them under the exclusive control of this court.

The cases of Adair vs. Winchester, 1 G. & J., 114, and Oliver
vs. Palmer & Hamilton, 11 G. & J., 426, are supposed to be
conclusive authorities against the complainant's right to pro-
ceed in this court upon this bill.