that agents had been employed to manage the affairs of the whole, with authority to receive the fares; that, after paying the expenses of such agencies, the balance of the receipts was to be divided among the respective proprietors of the intermediate lines; that there had been a general dissolution of the company of the proprietors of the entire line, and its concerns had never been adjusted; and that the defendant had not within his control the means of effecting a settlement of the account. Held, the plea was not a good defence. - Newton v. Thayer, xvii. 129. D. Chancery jurisdiction for discovery of secreted property. 1. A. and B. deposited a deed in the hands of C. A. afterwards demanded it of C., who refused to give it up until he should be so ordered by the Court, B. also claiming the right to have possession of it. A brings a bill in equity to recover possession of the deed, without first suing out a writ of replevin. Held, the Court had jurisdiction of the case, under Revised Statutes, c. 81, § 8. Mills v. Gore, xx. 28. 2. A bill in equity lies, to compel the discovery and redelivery to the plaintiff of a note taken by the maker and concealed and withheld so that it cannot be replevied, though either trover or assumpsit might have been maintained. - Clapp v. Shephard, xxiii. 228. 3. If it appear, that the facts concerning which a discovery is sought are material to the relief, the bill need not aver that the discovery is material, and necessary to prove the facts alleged. Ibid. 4. The plaintiff is bound to set forth his title to the note. It is not enough to allege generally that he is the owner. Ibid. 5. By the Revised Statutes, c. 81, § 8, a bill in equity lies, to compel delivery of property, which is detained, &c., so that it cannot be replevied. Held, this act does not apply, unless the party might legally bring an action of replevin, and is prevented from effectually prosecuting it, by reason of the concealment, &c. of the property, &c. by the defendant. Clapp v. Shephard, 2 Met. 127. 6. After dissolution of a partnership, A, a member thereof, assigned his interest to B, to whom a debtor of the firm gave his note, payable to him or order, in settlement of the claim. Certain differences between the partners having been left to arbitrators, they awarded the note to C, one of the firm, who gave notice thereof to the debtor, and forbade his paying it to any one else. The note never came into C.'s hands, but A, took it, and indorsed it, as attorney for B., to D., to whom it was paid, after the above notice. C. afterwards obtained a decree for specific performance of the award, and filed a bill in equity against A. and the maker of the note, to compel a delivery of the note to him, alleging that it had been taken, detained, secreted or withheld from him, so that it could not be replevied. As against A., the bill was taken pro confesso. Held, by the above proceedings C. had not become legal owner of the note, and could not maintain this bill against the promiser. — Ibid. E. Chancery jurisdiction to enforce specific performance. 1. One A., being in possession of certain land, and the defendant, who claimed title thereto, agreed in writing to submit their claims to B. as arbitrator, his award to be final. B. awarded, that the defendant had no legal title, and should execute a release to A.; but he refused to do it. A. having afterwards died, his administrator sold the land under a license, and conveyed it without warranty. The purchaser and the administrator then join in bringing a bill in equity, to compel the defendant to execute a release. Held, the administrator was a necessary party to the suit ; that the agreement to refer was equal and mutual; that the agreement and award passed, in equity, to the purchaser, with the land, though not expressly assigned, the administrator having affirmed the assignment by becoming a party to the suit, and having authority to make such assignment; and therefore that the bill was rightly brought, and the purchaser entitled to a decree. - Hodges v. Saunders, xvii. 470. 2 A bill in equity will lie for specific performance of a written contract concerning personal property, where there is not an adequate remedy at law. Clark v. Flint, xxii. 231. 3. Where A., the owner of a chattel, agrees in writing, for a valuable consideration, to hold it subject to the order of B., but afterwards assigns it to C., who has notice of such contract, B. may maintain a bill for specific performance against C. — Ibid. 4. Agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants, that that they should remove a bank of gravel from his land, and pay him $1 per square, but should not pass over his land in doing it. The defendants procured a license to cross the adjoining land, over which it became necessary to pass in removing the gravel; but, after a part was removed, the license was revoked. The plaintiff thereupon offered to allow the defendants to pass over his land; but this could not be done without great expense to them. Upon a bill for specific performance, held, it should not be sustained, because the revocation of the license had rendered performance unlawful, and the plaintiff had a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law. Sears v. Boston, xvi. 357. F. Chancery jurisdiction for redemption of mortgages. 1. A. had several loans from a bank, at different times, on notes indorsed by B. for his accommodation, and, on obtaining two of them, lodged collateral security, agreeing that it might be applied to the payment of any sum that he had obtained or might obtain on loan or discount from the bank. The bank made collections on this security, which were applied in part payment of the notes discounted when the security was lodged, and then recovered judgments for the balance of those notes, in suits against B., the indorser, and satisfied the judgments by levies upon B.'s lands. C. also recovered a judgment against B., and sold on execution B.'s right to redeem the land levied on by the bank, and then transferred the right thus acquired to D. After satisfaction of the bank's judgments by the levies, the bank collected other sums on the collateral security, and applied them to other notes indorsed by B. and discounted for A. D. thereupon demanded that said sums should be applied to the discharge of the judgments of the bank against B., and brought a bill in equity against the bank, to redeem the lands on paying only the balance which would be due on the judgments after deducting those sums. Held, the bill could not be sustained. Richardson v. Washington, &c., 3 Met. 536. 2. Bill in equity against A., an execution creditor, to whom real estate had been set off, by B., another creditor of the same debtor, who had levied an execution upon the debtor's right to redeem from A. It appeared that B. recovered his judgment, contrary to § 3, c. 92 of the Revised Statutes, the debtor being out of the Commonwealth, and receiving no notice of the suit. Held, the bill did not lie. - Downs v. Fuller, 2 Met. 135. 3. A widow cannot maintain a bill in equity for her dower, where she has a remedy at law. Hence, such bill must allege, either that the husband was seised during the marriage only of an equity of redemption, or that she joined him in the mortgage.Messiter v. Wright, xvi. 151. G. Chancery jurisdiction to compel contribution. 1. A surety in a bond having died intestate, leaving more than one child, after the administration of his estate was closed, his cosurety was compelled to pay a part of the penalty. Held, under Revised Statutes, c. 70, § 16, the latter might maintain a bill in equity for contribution against the children, though he might have a remedy at law, it being the intent of the Legislature to give concurrent equity jurisdiction to this Court in such cases. - Wood v. Leland, xxii. 503. 2. A. and B. being sureties for C., A., having paid the debt, files a bill in equity against the heirs of B. for contribution, and summons all of them within reach of process, there being others who could not be reached. Held, under Revised Statutes, c. 70, A. should have a several decree against each defendant for an equal share of the whole claim against B.- Wood v. Leland, 1 Met. 387. 3. One of the defendants having died, held, his administrator should be summoned in, and the same decree rendered against him, to which the heir, if alive, would have been subject. — Ibid. H. Chancery Pleading, Evidence and Practice. 1. A bill in equity must contain, in the stating part, every averment necessary to entitle the plaintiff to relief, set forth distinctly and expressly. And a defect in this particular cannot be supplied by inference, or by a reference to other parts of the bill.— Wright v. Dame, xxii. 55. 2. Bill in equity against a purchaser of land, seeking to hold him accountable for the application of the purchase money. The stating part of the bill alleged, that a deed was placed in the hands of D., on the express trust and condition that he should deliver it to the purchaser only on payment of half the price, which D. had contracted to pay over to the plaintiff, and that the deed was delivered by D., the purchaser having notice of the trust; but omitted to state, whether the purchaser did or did not pay half the money to D. Held, the bill was defective, because, if the purchaser did pay one half the money, he was not bound to see to its application. Ibid. 3. A bill in equity, in which the plaintiff claims one general right, is not multifarious, though the defendants may have separate and distinct rights. - Dimmock v. Bixby, xx. 363. 4. A bill, filed by the assignees of an insolvent debtor, prayed the aid and directions of the Court in relation to conflicting claims of creditors, and the order in which they should be paid, and also prayed for relief against the debtors of the assignor, and sought to enforce payment from them. Held, the two branches of the bill, being founded on distinct rights, were misjoined in one suit. — Ibid. 5. A supplemental bill should not be filed as of course, but only by leave of court, and for cause; and its contents must be verified by affidavit or otherwise. - Pedrick v. White, 1 Met. 76. 6. The grounds of such bill must be one of the following; that the new matter relied on arose after the commencement of suit; that the plaintiff first had notice of it, or such notice as was available, after it was too late to amend; or that through inadvertence, misapprehension, &c. of himself or his counsel or agents, or other satisfactory cause, he has been prevented from sooner availing himself of such new matter. Ibid. 7. Where a bill in equity contains specific charges of fraud, and the answer only in general terms denies all fraud, the plaintiff should except to the form of the answer; but the charges are not therefore to be taken for true, and the defendant estopped to deny - Parkman v. Welch, xix. 231. them. 8. A bill in equity alleged, that C., the equitable owner of one half of a ship, drew on some of the defendants, the legal owners, an order to pay the plaintiff all balances due C. in account, and hold C.'s interest in the ship, subject to the plaintiff's order; that this order was absolutely and in writing accepted, but afterwards the acceptors assigned the ship to the other defendants, with notice of the acceptance. The answer admitted an acceptance, but averred that it took place with notice to the plaintiff that no balance was due C., but a large balance due from him, for which the vessel was held. Held, this averment was not a responsive one, and, as it contradicted the written acceptance, could not be proved by parol evidence. Clark v. Flint, xxii. 231. 9. In an equity suit, the plaintiff cannot by a special replication deny part of the matter of the plea, and restate the substance of the bill. A plea, if the only defence, must allege some fact, which is an entire bar to the suit or some substantive part of it; and, if defective in this respect, whether true or false, the plaintiff should move to set it aside for insufficiency. Newton v. Thayer, xvii. 129. 10. Where a bill for discovery and relief is filed against one who is bound to make discovery, but not liable to a decree for relief, he should demur only to that part of the bill which prays for |