Equity

[Admin]

Equity is "fairness" or "justness" and, specifically, is the name given to the whole area of the law that deals with disputes between persons when neither of them has done anything against the law, but there is a conflict between their rights or claims. Thus, it is to be contrasted with "law," which is the legal principles from the common law, the laws enacted by governments, and the "case law" (the principles set forth in courts' opinions deciding cases).

The "law courts" or "courts of law" were the courts all over England that enforced the king's laws in medieval times, but the "chancery courts" or "courts of equity" evolved from his discretionary decisions based on the specific facts of a single case. The only remedy a court of law can award is money damages, but a plaintiff whose neighbor will not return his only milk cow, which wandered onto the neighbor's property, for example, may want that particular cow back and not just its monetary value: A court of equity can order the neighbor to return the cow.

In the U.S today, the federal courts and most state courts have combined both functions in the same courts, so a plaintiff can get legal and equitable relief in one proceeding. This reflects the position in England where the fusion of law and equity was substantially effected by the Judicature Acts 1873-1875. Delaware, however, still has separate courts for law and equity -- and its Court of Chancery is where most cases involving Delaware corporations are decided, so it shapes corporation law for the whole country -- and some other states have separate divisions for legal and equitable matters in a single court. It is important to state that in the United States where trial by jury is guaranteed it is not guaranteed in court of equity as equity can only be dispensed by a judge as it is a matter of law and not subject to the intervention of the jury as trier of fact.

The distinction between "legal" and "equitable" relief is an important aspect of the American legal system. The right of jury trial in civil cases is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution, but only in cases that traditionally would have been handled by the law courts at Common Law. The question of whether a case should be determined by a jury depends largely on the type of relief the plaintiff requests. If a plaintiff requests damages in the form of money or, in certain cases, return of a specific item of property, the relief is a common law relief. On the other hand, if the plaintiff requests an injunction, declaratory judgment, specific performance, modification of contract, or other non-monetary relief, the claim would be one of equity.

Besides corporation law, which developed out of the law of trusts, areas within the jurisdiction of chancery courts included wills and probate, adoptions and guardianships, and marriage and divorce. The kinds of relief chancery courts could grant included injunctions (which are court orders not to do something specific, like bulldoze a fence someone else claims is theirs) and court orders requiring a person to take some specified action (like sign over the deed for a certain parcel of real estate).

The procedures in a court of equity were much more flexible than the courts at common law. In American civil practice, certain devices such as joinder, counterclaim, cross-claim and interpleader originated in the courts of equity. Because American federal courts don't distinguish between law and equity since the promulgation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these devices are now available in all Federal Civil Actions where appropriate.

Whereas the laws a court of law enforced were often written down by whoever made the laws, the principles a court of equity applied were not, so a list of the principles evolved as the Maxims of equity. (Similar "maxims of the law" also exist.) Indeed, one of the historic criticisms of equity as it developed was that it had no fixed rules of its own and each Lord Chancellor (who traditionally administered the courts of equity on behalf of the King) gave judgement according to his own conscience. John Selden, an eminent seventeenth century jurist, declared, "Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot".

Maxims of equity
The maxims of equity evolved, in Latin and eventually translated into English, as the principles applied by courts of equity in deciding cases before them.

Among the traditional maxims are:

* Equity looks upon that as done which ought to have been done.
* Equity suffers not a right without a remedy.
* Equality is equity.
* Equity regards substance rather than form.
* Where the equities are equal, the first in time will prevail.
* Where equities are equal, the law will prevail.
* Equity follows the law.
* He who seeks equity must do equity.
* He who seeks equity must have clean hands.
* Equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
* Delay defeats equity.
* Equity will not concern itself with abstract wrongs.
* Equity abhors a forfeiture.
* Equity does not require an idle gesture.
* Equity will not permit a party to profit by his own wrong.
* Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves.
* Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits.

In modern times, law students have summed up the meaning of the maxims as:

* Equity taketh no ****.

These docs may help understand equity. I think the case opinion (dissent) is great! There are no courts of law, only courts of equity. Learn & conquer your opponent in court!

[denise4554]

Thank you! You might have just given me the information to stop a law suit!

[David Merrill]

That is a good example of law v. equity.

The attachments are an interesting find while looking for a treatise on natural law (Noachide Law) mentioning John Selden (second paragraph). Instead I found Selden's Table Talk... a treatise written by John Selden's clerk.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[Sharing Lights]

Posts# 1 and 3 are so valuable that should be
downloaded and studied.


..

. U.S. Supreme Court BENNETT v. BUTTERWORTH, 52 U.S. 669 (1850) 52 U.S. 669 (How.) JOHN H. BENNETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAMUEL F. BUTTERWORTH. December Term, 1850 THIS case was ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... U.S. Supreme Court BENNETT v. BUTTERWORTH, 52 U.S. 669 (1850) 52 U.S. 669 (How.) JOHN H. BENNETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAMUEL F. BUTTERWORTH. December Term, 1850 THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... who is a citizen of the State of New York, against John H. Bennett, who is a citizen of the State of Texas, would respectfully represent unto [52 U.S. 669, 670] your honor, that heretofore, viz. on the ___ day of March, 1846, at _____ to wit, in the district aforesaid, he, your petitioner, was ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... demurred to by the plaintiff, and the demurrer sustained; so that there remained only the first plea, to which the plaintiff also demurred, but [52 U.S. 669, 671] his demurrer was overruled, and he then replied. The case then went to trial upon this plea and general replication. These pleadings have ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... it is ordered that the motion be overruled,' And afterwards, to wit, on the 25th day of August, 1849, the following order was made, to wit:--- [52 U.S. 669, 672] 'SAMUEL F. BUTTERWORTH v. J. H. BENNETT.

'The counsel of defendant in this cause tendered his bill of exception to the opinion of the ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... and also six and a fourth cents, the damages by the jurors aforesaid assessed, and also his costs about his suit in this behalf expended. [52 U.S. 669, 673] 'To the entry of said judgment the defendant objects, on the ground that the same is not in accordance with the verdict of the jury; but ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... the verdict, and the amendment laws of Texas. Act of Texas, 1846, p. 202, 7; p. 365, 5; p. 392, 104; p. 393, 115; pp. 396, 397, 132, 133. [52 U.S. 669, 674] There is no distinction in Texas between courts or suits at law or in equity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... as authorizing legal and equitable claims to be blended together in one suit. The Constitution of the United States, in creating and defining [52 U.S. 669, 675] the judicial power of the general government, establishes this distinction between law and equity; and a party who claims a legal title ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... it is, that the verdict must find the matter in issue between the parties, and the judgment of the court must conform to and follow the verdict. [52 U.S. 669, 676] But here the matter in issue was the property in these ......., and the verdict does not find that they are the property of the plaintiff ...