Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/568

554 FEDERAL EBPOBTER. �tickets, which under the statute represent the title, are outstanding. When the holder of the statutory evidence of titlo to grain in a ware- house or elevator "surrenders" it to the warehouseman, and the latter certifies the faot, there is nothing in the statute to give his certificate the force and effect which formerly belonged to the surrendered instrument. Inasmuch as the respondents deposited no grain in the elevator, they could only purchase grain therein as against actual depositors by buying outstanding certificates representing such grain, and taking an assignment thereof. They did not do this. In no instance did they take an assignment of the evidence of title. It follows that their claims must be postponed to those of actual depos- itors vrho present the evidence of title recognized by the statute. �2. A question is made as to whether, upon the facts already stated, the case is one of equitable cognizance. It is insisted that, inasmuch as there is grain enough to satisfy all of complainant's demands, they have severally a right to proceed at law, and there- fore no right to proceed in equity. It is true that when the action of replevin was before this court, it was supposed by the court that all the certificates were equally liens upon the grain in the ele- vator, and that ,none of the claimants -were entitled to payment in full. The question as to the effect of the "surrender certificates" was not then raised, and the court assumed that they were warehouse receipts or certificates, evidencing title, within the meaning of the statute. Although, upon further consideration, it now appears this was a mistaken assumption, it does not follow that the jurisdiction in equity fails. It is still a case for discovery, and an accounting between the parties. Without a discovery and an accounting, the court could not know that the complainants are entitled to payment in full. If one of them had sued alone at law, how could the court or a jury have determined whether he waa entitled to recover the whole amount claimed. To determine that question the presence of other depositors of grain was necessary, or at least proper, and an accounting as between all such depositors, if not the only, was cer- tainly the moet convenient and adequate mode of proceeding. If the remedyin equity is more complete and adequate than that at law, and especially if it prevents a multiplicity of suits, the equitable jurisdic- tion can be maintained even if there is a concurrent remedy at law. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 457. Nor would it make any difference if it were admitted that the result of the discovery and accounting is to develop the fact, not before known, that the complainants might ��� �