Argument for Appellant. no cross appeal by appellee, left the case entirely destitute of equity against Tyler, and the bill should have been dismissed. If parties could give jurisdiction in equity to the United States courts by mere averments unsubstantiated by proof, the constitutional guaranty of trial by jury would be worthless. This court carefully protects that constitutional right from invasion by equity. Russell v. Clark, 7 Cranch, 69; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487; Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347; Kramer v. Cohn, 119 U. S. 355. Upon this ground alone it would seem that the bill should be dismissed. II. The decree is outside the case made by the bill. It was a surprise, as well as an injustice to the appellant, who has as fair a name as any person in the city of Richmond. Indeed, it is noticeable that the decree, in stating the deduction of the court from the evidence, does not state that Mr. Tyler had made false representations to Mrs. Savage, knowing them to be false, but merely says that the representations were not true; but it did not follow, necessarily, that Tyler knew they were not true. The draughtsman of that decree no doubt thought, and properly, too, that it would be a libel upon Mr. Tyler, from a moral point of view, to make the decree recite that that gentleman had wilfully misled Mrs. Savage; and in this way we may account for the remarkable omission from the decree of that necessary element of the plaintiff's case. An examination of the bill shows that the complainant proceeded on the theory that the defendants Tyler and Otley owed the Virginia Oil Company more than $10,000 for the 50 shares of stock held by each of them, and alleged to have been paid for in a way that was a fraud on the company and its creditors, and the tenacity with which the complainant clung to this point up to the final decree shows that she and her counsel deemed it to be well founded. The bill also claims that the defendant Otley owes the company the further sum of $2500, with interest, the same being money of the company paid him, illegally, as alleged, by Mr. Tyler, as president of the company, for the purpose of retiring the shares of stock held by him. It is manifest, therefore, that the plaintiff considered that she had in these and other supposed assets of the com Opinion of the Court. pany an ample fund for the satisfaction of her demand, and that there was no necessity for pressing any claim she might have against Tyler personally, otherwise than as a stockholder who is alleged not to have paid up his stock. Tyler and the other stockholders were made parties to the bill because they were supposed to be debtors to the company on their stock. The truth is, no doubt, that it was no part of the complainant's original plan of attack to urge a demand against Tyler for the alleged fraud, and that it was not until the complainant's case against the defendants Tyler and Otley, as debtors to the company, broke down, that an attempt was made to hold Tyler personally responsible for the alleged fraud. The complainant had no right to urge a demand against Tyler covertly, and thereby throw him off his guard and surprise him at the last moment, when it was too late to demur for multifariousness, and the court will presume from the face of the bill that no such improper course was intended, while every doubt in the bill will be resolved against the complainant, according to the well known rule. Upon this ground, also, the decree is invalid, being entirely outside the case made in the bill. III. Upon the question of fraud we have to say that after a careful examination of this record, we do not hesitate to say that it is incomprehensible to us how the learned judge below could have felt warranted in putting the stigma of this decree on the appellant, who is among the most honorable and respected citizens of Richmond. Mr. William Wirt Henry for appellee. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. It is assigned for error (1) that the record does not present a case for the exercise of jurisdiction in equity; (2) that the decree is outside of the case made in the bill, which is for the enforcement of the corporate liability of the Virginia Oil Company; (3) that the evidence does not warrant the imputation of fraud to the defendants Tyler and the Virginia Oil Company; and (4) that the decree is devoid of support in the record. Opinion of the Court. (1) It is contended that the only ground on which the bill can be supported against Tyler is, that it contains averments to the effect that he is indebted to the corporation on account of his stock in it; that what is thus owed by him is a part of its assets; and that the plaintiff has an equity to compel payment of the amount thus due, and to subject it to her claim for damages against the corporation. It is contended that, stripped of those averments, the bill is nothing more than a declaration in an action on the case, at law, for the recovery of damages for a false representation; that, as the case stands in the record, with reference to Tyler, it is wholly destitute of equity, and therefore the court decreed on a case that was beyond its jurisdiction; that the only equity which the plaintiff pretended she had against Tyler was to compel him to pay in money for his stock in the company, it being averred that what had been claimed to be a payment for the stock was largely fraudulent and fictitious; that the master did not find that the stock issued to Tyler was not fully paid for, and, the plaintiff having excepted to the report because the master did not so find, the court confirmed his report in that respect; that, as the plaintiff took no appeal, the case was thus left destitute of equity against Tyler, and the bill should have been dismissed; and reference is made, under this head, to the cases of Russell v. Clark's Executors, 7 Cranch, 69, 89; Thompson v. Railroad Companies, 6 Wall. 137; Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 500; Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347, 352; Kramer v. Cohn, 119 U. S. 355, 357; and § 723 Rev. Stat. U. S. The bill set out a case of fraud practised upon the plaintiff by Tyler, in that, in order to induce her to purchase the $10,000 of stock, he, as president of the company, sent to her the letter of April 10, 1884, upon the statements in which she relied and had a right to rely. It was alleged in the bill that the letter, both by its statements and its omissions, was false and deceitful, and operated as a fraud upon the plaintiff, and that, $10,000 having been obtained from her unlawfully, by the misrepresentations of the affairs of the company by Tyler, its president and duly authorized agent, and having gone into Opinion of the Court. its treasury and been expended by it, that sum was justly due her by Tyler and the company, with interest, and she had a right to require all the proper assets of the company to be gotten in and applied to the debts due to her and others; that the company was insolvent; and that a receiver ought to be appointed for it. The bill also required from the defendants answers to the interrogatories which it contained. Tyler and Otley, in their answers to the interrogatories, referred to the books of the company as containing the facts which would give answers to those interrogatories; and Tyler, in his testimony, referred to the books as showing the facts in regard to the condition of the company on June 1, 1884. The information obtained from the answers to the interrogatories and from the proofs in the books showed the insolvent condition of the company on June 1, 1884, and that, as the master reported, it was at that date bankrupt. Tyler must be held to have had knowledge at that time of the condition of the company, as, he was its president, and commenced keeping its books about March, 1883; and he is chargeable with knowledge of the facts, reported by the master, that of the $10,000 paid by the plaintiff he received personally the benefit of $6200. The recovery by the plaintiff thus depended largely on the information in the possession of the company and of Tyler, and which was sought for by the bill; and an application of the assets of the company, to replace such of the money paid by the plaintiff as had been. used by it, was necessary before Tyler could be made responsible individually for what the assets of the company would not pay. Thus there were in the case, as ingredients to support the jurisdiction of equity, discovery, account, fraud, misrepresentation and concealment. Story Eq. Jur. §§ 64k, 67, 184, 191; Jones v. Bolles, 9 Wall. 364, 369. Under § 723 of the Revised Statutes, the remedy at law, in order to exclude equity, must be as practical and as efficient to the ends of justice and its prompt administration, as the remedy in equity. Boyce's Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210, 215; Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. 616, 620. Opinion of the Court. In Russell v. Clark's Executors, 7 Cranch, 69, 89, the bill was one for discovery, and the answer disclosed nothing, the plaintiff supporting his case by testimony in his own possession. In the case now before us, discovery was only one of the grounds of jurisdiction, and the answers to the bill disclosed, through the books of the company, facts which the plaintiff sought to discover. In Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 500, it was held that there was a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law for the relief granted by the decree. In the present case, discovery was prayed for and made, the affairs of an insolvent corporation were settled up, the subscription to stock made by the plaintiff was substantially cancelled, part of the proceeds of the assets of the company were applied to the repayment of the $10,000, and a decree for the balance was made against Tyler, the agent of the company, who had committed the fraud. In Buzard v. Houston, 119 U. S. 347, the ruling was, that a court of equity would not sustain a bill in a case of fraud, to obtain only a decree for the payment of money by way of damages, when the like amount might be recovered in an action at law; and that, if a bill in equity showing ground for legal and not for equitable relief, prayed for a discovery as incidental only to the relief sought, and the answer disclosed nothing, but the plaintiff supported the claim by independent evidence, the bill ought to be dismissed, without prejudice to an action at law. In Kramer v. Cohn, 119 U. S. 355, the ruling was, that a bill in equity by an assignee in bankruptcy against the bankrupt and another person, alleging that the bankrupt, with intent to defraud his creditors, concealed and sold his property and invested the proceeds in a business carried on by him in the name of the other defendant, should, on a failure to prove the latter allegation, be dismissed without prejudice to an action at law against the bankrupt. The present case is not within the rulings in the cases thus referred to. Moreover, the objection now made to the jurisdiction in |