20 FEDERAB REPORTER.
By the lord keeper, in Tilly v. Bridges, Prec. Ch. 252. This excep-
tion includes all cases which involve an equity which cannot be made
available at law. 1 Fonbl. Eq. marg. pp. 14 and 15, and note, (4th
Am. Ed. by Laussat.) If the recovery of the demand had been un-
conscientiously obstructed, that of itself constituted an equity. Czar-
tis v. Curtis, 2 Brown, Ch. 633, per Sir Lnorn Knxros, afterwards
Chief Justice and Lord KENYON. J
The gravamcn of the bill of complaint is that the defendant,
by her direct efforts, persisted in multi fide, has kept the complain-
ant out of possession for 47 years, and until any remedy by an ac-
count at law is practically impossible. _ This allegation alone, accord-
ing to the principle laid down in Pultcney v. Wmwn, 6 Ves. 73, would
give jurisdiction.
But there is another distinct ground of equity jurisdiction here.
The complainant has recovered judgment against several hundred
actual tenants for rents and profits for varying portions of this long
period. These tenants are insolvent. The defendant in this action
is the warrantor of all those tenants, and whatever they owe the
complainant the defendant owes to them. The defendant is not only
a warrantor, but she is a warrantor who has enriched herself by pur-
chasing in bad faith the complainants property and selling it at a
profit of $500,000. This sum she has retained, and has had the use
of since the yea1· 1837. The complainant has no remedy at law upon
this warranty from want of privity. Equity, therefore, gives her a
right of action. This case is, in principle, the case of Riddle v.
Ilfandeville, 5 Cranch, 322, where “an indorser of a promissory note,
who had been adjudged to have no remedy at law against a remote
indorser, was held to be entitled to maintain a suit in equity against
him, on the ground that the defendant, as the origiral indorser of
the note, was ultimately responsible for it, and that equity would de-
cree the payment to be made immediately, by the person ultimately
responsible, to the person actually entitled to receive the money."
Page 329.
It is but another application of the principle laid down by Mr.
Story in his Equity Jurisprudence, § 687, that where an owner and
lessor would have no action at law against an under-tenant upon his
covenant for rent, still, if the original tenant was insolvent, equity
would give the owner a direct action against the under-tenant. The
reason assigned by Mr. Story is that the under-tenant should not be
permitted to enjoy the profits of possession without accounting to
the original lessor, because, if the original lessee had paid, he would
° have had a remedy over against the under-tenant.
It is but another application of the well-settled p1·inciple recognized
in the familiar case put by Chief Justice MARSHALL, Id. 5 Cranch, 330,
i of a right of action by a creditor of an estate against the legatees of
his debtor. "If," says Chief Justice AIABSHALL, "doubts of his right
to sue in chancery could be entertained while the executor was solv-