
    BLACK v. VANDERBILT et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    December 6, 1901.)
    Equity Jurisdiction—Remedy at Law.
    . Equity has no jurisdicti:n of case showing only that defendants have broken their agreement to compensate plaintiff for his services, there being an adequate and complete remedy at law.
    Appeal from special term, New York county.
    Action by E. Martin Black against William K. Vanderbilt and others, trustees for E. Martin Black. From a judgment sustaining the demurrer of defendants William K. Vanderbilt and Edward V. W. Rossiter to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The following is the opinion of the court below (SCOTT, J.):
    The plaintiff makes out no case entitling him to equitable relief. Taking his allegations as true, as they must be taken in face of the demurrer, the most that can be said is that the defendants have broken their agreement to compensate him for his services. For this breach he has an adequate and complete remedy at law. The case, as made by the complaint, differs in essential particulars from Marston v. Gould, 69 N. Y. 220, upon which plaintiff seems to rely. The demurrer must be sustained, with costs, with leave to plaintiff to amend within twenty days upon payment of costs.
    Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. T., and McEAUGHEIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and EAUGHEIN, JJ.
    R. E. Stanton, for appellant.
    H. E. Anderson, for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of court below.  