
    Staniford v. Henry Dewit, John Dewit et al.
    Cliancery will not sustain a suit vliere there is adequate remedy at law.
    PetitioN in chancery; stating, that in A. D. 1781, the petitioner and said Henry, John and Bela Elderkin, entered into partnership in trade, the said Henry to be responsible for said John; that they traded largely and much property was acquired thereby; that said Henry had got a greater share of said company’s interest into his hands, than belonged to him; and that said company was indebted to him the petitioner a large sum, and that their accounts had never been settled; and praying, that said Henry be obliged to account for the property he has in his hands; that said accounts be liquidated and settled; and that the court would order and decree, what shall be found to be right and just among all the copartners.
    Plea in abatement — That the petitioner had an adequate remedy at law, by an action of account.
   Judgment — Plea sufficient. Nothing’ appears from tbe stating in tbe petition, but wbat tbe petitioner’s remedy at law is completely adequate.  