
    Gover vs. Christie and Jay.
    Where A, m conbirieratMUi of a debt due from him to B, assigns to lmn (not under the act of 1763, ek 23, $ 9, 10,) the borní of C, and O is or beet nirs in* solvent — On a bill by 1? asyain'-t A, to compel payment of the bond so a*= úgited— Decreed„ that the court oí* chancery has no jinis/iiclton; that if ihe assignment was an extinguish*» meat of the origi mx\ th bt, the oomnhwnam was nofi entithd to relief (ÍIÍrv at lav/ or in equity; and n the assignment was not an extin guishment oí the original debt, the fompiain&nt had his i\ in* dy at law on the origina! contiuefjtlieu bt» ÍU2T no eirouio" ill thebilitoinaho it necessary for him to resort to a court of ev«\wyv
    Appear from the Court of Chancery. The bill of the complainants, Christie and Jay, stated, that on the 20th cf February 1797, Samuel Willetts, for full value received, executed a single bill to Cover, the defendant, promising to pay to him, or order, £233, on or bolore the 1st of April 1798. That in consideration of a debt due from Cover to them, he on the lliti of Slay 1787, assigned the. said single bill to the complainants. That suit was brought on the, bill against Willetts, in the name of Cover, for the use of the complainants. That a judgment was obtained at May term 1800, and an execution issued against the. property of Willetts, which was returned nulla bona to October term following. That no part of the debt was ever paid, except £10 paid on the 30th of September 1797. That Willetts has become insolvent, and released by the insolvent law. That the complainant-¡ have, frequently called on Cover, the assignor, and roques! ed payment, which he has refused.. That the assignment of ihe single 1 till was not made in pursuance of the act of assembly, so as to enable the complainants to proceed at law against Cover, the assignor. Prayer, for a decree to compel Cover to pay the amount, of the single bill, (deducting the said payment,) with interest, See. and for other relief, £:,e. The ««steer of Cover stated, that he assigned (he single bill of Willetts, and two other bonds to him from other persona, to the complainanfa, in full satisfaction of the debt which ha owed to them, and that they agreed to taka said assignments in full satisfaction, without having any further or after recourse to him for the debt due from him to them, or for or on account of the assigned bill and bonds, and upon that condition the assignments were made, and receipt, in full was given for ilia debt duo by him to them. That when tlie assignments were made, ihe several obligors were in solvent circumstances, and good credit; and that the amounts due on the two bonds have, been received by the complainants, and they might have received the amount due on the single bill from Willetts, if due and reasonable diligence had been used. The complainants entered a general replication to the, answer of the defendant, and a commission issued to take testimony. By the testimony it was proved, that Willetts was not solvent and in rircum - stances to pay liis debts to any amount in either of the years 1797, 1798, 1799, or 1800. The case being submitted, the following decree was made by,
    Hanson, Chancellor, (December term 1803.) The cause being ready for decision, the bill, answer and exhibits, evidence, and all other proceedings, were by the Chancellor carefully read and considered, and it appearing just and equitable that the complainants should not be exclude ed from recovering the balance of the debt due from the defendant to them, op account of having received the assignment of a bond from one Samuel Willetts to the complainants, inasmuch as the money never was received, and especially, as appears from the evidence in the cause, that he was insolvent at the time the defendant assigned the same to the complainant — Decreed, that the defendant pay to the complainants the sum of £r¿l6 7 9, current money, stated by the auditor of the court, under the Chancellor’'» order, to be due, with interest thereon until paid, together with costs of suit. From which decree the defendant appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Tilghmas, Nicholson, and Gantt, J.
    
      Shaaff and Harper, for the appellant,
    contended, that the complainants had adequate remedy at law, and could not apply to a court of equity for relief. They referred to Cole v. Garretson, 1 Harr. & Johns. 370. Forbes vs. Perrie, Ibib. 109. Winchester, et al. vs. Brooke, ante 1.
    
      Johnson, (Attorney General,) for the appellees,
    cited Fonbl. 10, 14. The act of 1703, ch. 23, s. 9 10. Pasley vs. Freeman, 3 T. R. 51.
    
   Chase, Ch. J.

delivered the opipion of the court. The court are of opinion, that the court of chancery had no jurisdiction in this case.

If the assignment was an extinguishment of the original debt, the complainants are not entitled to relief, either at law or in equity.

If the assignment was not an extinguishment of the original debt, and the court are of' that opinion on consideration of the bill, answer and proof, the complainants ha^. their remedy at law on Ibe original contract, there being no circumstances disclosed in the bill to make it necessary for them to resort to a court of equity.

DECREE REVERSED.  