#### Hart vs. Mallet.

A FTER reading the bill by the plaintiff’s counsel, the counsel for the defendant remarked, that this was the proper time to bring forward a motion he intended to make ; which was, that the bill be dismissed for want of equity. It stated an award, whereby the defendant was ordered to pay money to the plaintiff, but no cause whatsoever for applying to this court.— The remedy at law is complete for aught that is stated in this *137bill. It is Go answer to say that we ought to have demurred for that cause, for at that rate every cause proper for a court of law, may be brought into a court of cquitv and decided there by the consent or neglect of parties, ft is a welt known rule that this -court, and indeed every other, must have jurisdio tion by law over the causes it decides ; and that the consent of parties cannot confer a jurisdiction which the law does not. Not demurring therefore, is not an admission of jurisdiction which the court can notice, ' At furthest it can only operate upon the discretion of the court in the awarding of costs. He cited 3 Atk, 1 Vescy, 341, 346,163» ■

The counsel for the plaintiff replied,

■Et per Johnston, Judge.

I am very loth to dismiss this bill, which I understand has been many years upon the docket % but the authorities are too strong and pointed for me to get over.— Jurisdiction cannot be given to a court by the admission of parties, when it has not jurisdiction of the subject matter without such admission.

Net the bill be dismissed, each party paying half the costs,