-18 , . FEDERAL REPORTER.
rents and profits which have been or ought to have been annually
received and credited with the yearly expenditures for reclamation,
improvements, and taxes, and that, too, with reference to hundreds of
lots of ground. It is an account, the correct statement of which by
the master occupies 300 pages, and upon which the record shows he
has been occupied almost three years. It is, therefore, an account
of a most complicated and rarnified character, which could not be
dealt with upon a trial at law at nist prius. i'
The fact that the constitution of the United States guarantics to
all suitors in common-law cases, where more than $20 is involved, a
trial by jury, should insure precision on the part of courts in discrim-
inating as to the proper character of causes, but cannot change the
answer to the question as to whether a cause is of equitable cogni-
zance. That must depend upon whether it be such a cause as the
English court of chancery would have taken cognizance of at the
time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States.
The case of Root v. Ry. Oo. 105 U. S. 189, relied on by defendant,
by no means excludes this case from the equity courts. On the con-
trary, while it holds that where there is no element of trust, and
where there are no other special circumstances which would author-
ize jurisdiction in equity, an action for an account is an action at
law; it adds the express reservation (page 216) that "an equity may
arise out of, and inhere in, the nature of thc account ifsetf, if it render
a remedy in a legal tribunal dgfjicult, inadequate, and incomplete."
v_ In Hipp v_.Babin, .19 How. 271, there is the same exception made.
That was a suit for a·`nal:ed accounting as to rents and profits.
There were no equity features. `The court in declining jurisdiction
(page 279) says: “To.authorize jurisdiction it must appear that the
courts otlaw could not give a plain, adequate, and complete remedy;"
and that-that case did not show that justice could be administered
with less expense and vexation in a court of equity than in a court of
law." V
_ In Ex parte Bax, 2 Ves. Sr. 388, Lord Hannxvrcxn said: _
, .4 " In an action at law an account is to_be taken by auditors. Indeed, where
the auditors have taken the account, and on charging and discharging the
items issues may be joined, and so many issues then may be tried, actions
at law, therefore, for accounts are so few because so long time is required."
In O'C0mior v. Spaight, 1 Schoales fc L. 309, Lord Rntmsnnnn said,
(this was an action for an account by a landlord against a tena.1t
for rent:) c r ‘ L
“ The ground on which I think this is a proper case for equity is that the
account has become so complicated that a court of law wouldbeincompetent
to examine it upon a trial at msi prius with all neccessary accuracy. * * *
filhls is 2. principle on which courts of equity constantly act by taking cogni-
_zance of matters which, though cognizable by courts of law, are yet so in-
lvolrctl with a complex account thatit cannot properly be taken at law."_ · -