The jurisdiction of Courts of Equity in matters of account, is assumed where the Courts of law cannot conveniently ascertain and adequately administer the rights of the parties. It is ordinarily exercised where the defendant occupies such a position or relation as requires him to keep and render an account to the plaintiff; and also where there are mutual dealings between the parties, not constituting mere matters of set off, but requiring, in order to ascertain the balance, a more complicated account, than can practically be taken at law. Adams’ Equity, 222.

In our case, the plaintiff as a physician, rendered professional services to the testator of the defendant, for a long series of years, and received at various times, partial payments, which were duly credited; and there was no difficulty in striking a. proper balance.

The defendant’s testator was a farmer, and at various times furnished agricultural products to the plaintiff at the market prices. There was no agreement between the parties that their cross demands should constitute items of account, and the claims of the one should be in satisfaction pro tanto of the other. These transactions had no business connection with each other, but were entirely independent, and constituted *576 mere matters of set off, which, could be easily ascertained and adjusted in a Court of law.

In McLin v. McNamara, 2 Dev. &. Bat. Eq., 82, the transaction between the parties consisted of a continuous course ot .dealing in the way of trade and merchandize, and created mutual and dependent demands.

There was no necessity for the plaintiff’in this case, to resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction of a Court of Equity, as his remedy at law was plain and adequate.

The bill must be dismissed.