No. 2540. Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 2, § 1. § 1. Of the constitution of courts of equity. No. 2540. 2540. The judge of a court of equity, sometimes called a court of chancery, bears the title of chancellor. The equity jurisdiction, in some of the states, is, as in discretion, by enforcing technical rules incapable of expansion, and by prescribing a strict and unvarying judgment. As society advanced, such a state of things naturally produced much injustice. Many rights arose which the courts of law either totally ignored, or only partially recognized; and at length, toward the end of the fourteenth century, the evils arising from this illiberal system had reached such a pitch, that the clerical chancellors, after the example of the prætors at Rome, assumed a jurisdiction, in cases of peculiar hardship, to mitigate the severity, to supply the defects, and to extend the remedies of the common law. The principles upon which the chancellor proceeded were drawn in part from the civil law, and in part from abstract morality and justice; and he asserted his jurisdiction, not by interfering directly with the proceedings or judgments of the courts of common law, which would have provoked a dangerous, and probably a successful resistance, but by personal influence exerted upon the litigants, whom he compelled, by the threat of punishment, to do whatever appeared to him upon the special circumstances of the individual case to be just, without reference to the maxims or the decisions of the courts of law. Thus did the ultimate power over property pass in a great measure from the courts of law, and thus was the duty of the legislature of adapting our jurisprudence to the emergencies of society as they arise, virtually transferred to a court of equity. So long as this state of things continued, a division of the courts of law and equity seems to have been absolutely necessary, for a fusion of them would have been nothing less than a complete abrogation of the law, and the substitution for it of the arbitrary discretion of a judge. And it is in this sense, and with reference to this system, that the committee understand and acquiesce in the justice of the celebrated opinion of Lord Bacon:'Omninò placet curiarum separatio; neque enim servabitur distinctio casuum si fiat commixtio jurisdictionum, sed arbitrium legem trahet.' "At the present day this arbitrium' prevails no more in equity than at law. Precedent has superseded discretion-justice is no longer capable of being moulded in chancery with a view to relieving each individual wrong; for it has long been considered, and rightly considered. that any system of law thus administered, varying, as it must do, with the opinions of each successive judge, is little better than absolute tyranny; and the decrees of the chancellor, equally with the judgments of the common law judges, are now founded on general rules, the offspring of former decisions, and applicable alike to entire classes of cases. Indeed equity for more than a century past has become a system as fixed, as defined, and as incapable of further expansion, as the common law itself, against whose narrow principles it relieves. We have thus two systems of jurisprudence, of different origin, and employing different methods of procedure; the principle of the one being to mitigate, correct, and assist the other, though it no longer possesses that flexibility and power of individualizing its relief, which such an office would seem to require." No. 2541. Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 2, § 2. No. 2541. England, vested in a high court of chancery, and such courts are distinct from courts of law. But American courts of equity are, in some instances, distinct from those of law; in others, the same tribunals exercise the jurisdiction both of courts of law and courts of equity, though their forms of proceedings are different in their two capacities. The supreme court of the United States, and the circuit courts, are invested with general equity powers, and act either as courts of law or equity, according to the form of the process and the subject of adjudication. In some of the states, as in Virginia and South Carolina, the equity court is a distinct tribunal, having its appropriate judge or chancellor, and other officers. In most of the states, the two jurisdictions centre in the same judicial officers, as in the courts of the United States. The extent of equity jurisdiction and proceedings varies very much in different states; it is ample in Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina; more restricted in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. And in some states equity is administered entirely through the forms of law. This is now the case in New York. § 2. Of the jurisdiction of courts of equity. 2541. A court of equity has jurisdiction of equitable rights only. Courts of law, acting according to the strict principles of the common law, proceed according to certain prescribed forms, render a general judgment for or against the plaintiff. There are many cases in which a simple judgment for either party, without qualifications or conditions, will not do entire justice, ex æquo et bono, to either party. Some modifications of the rights of both parties are required in such cases; some restraint on one side or the other; and some peculiar arrangements, either present or future, temporary or perpetual. No. 2542. Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 2, § 2. No. 2543. In cases of this kind, where the courts of law cannot grant the proper remedy or relief, a remedy may be had, in those states where equity is administered, by applying to the courts of equity or chancery; for these tribunals are not limited or confined in their modes of relief, by such narrow regulations as govern courts of law, but grant relief to all parties, in cases where they have rights ex æquo et bono, and modify and fashion their relief according to circumstances. 2542. Courts of equity exercise jurisdiction in cases where a plain, adequate, and complete remedy cannot be had at law; that is, in common law courts. The remedy at law must be plain, for, if it be doubtful and obscure at law, equity will assert a jurisdiction. If the remedy be not adequate at law, and it fall short of what the party is entitled to, this will give jurisdiction to a court of equity. And if it be not complete at law, that is, reach the whole mischief and secure the rights of the parties, now and forever, it will be a sufficient ground for the interference of a court of equity, which will grant complete relief. 2543. The jurisdiction of a court of equity is either concurrent, exclusive or assistant. 1. Equity exercises concurrent jurisdiction with courts of law in cases where the rights are purely of a legal nature, but where other and more efficient aid is required than a court of law can afford, to meet the difficulties of the case, and insure full redress. Formerly in some of these courts of law, all redress was refused, but now they grant it. In this manner jurisdiction having been once justly acquired, at a time when there was no such redress at law, it has been retained. The most common exercise of concurrent jurisdiction is in cases of account, accident, dower, fraud, mistake, partnership and partition. This remedy is often more complete in equity than it is at law. many of these cases, and especially in some cases of In No. 2543. Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 2, § 2. No. 2543. fraud, mistake or accident, courts of law, not acting on equity principles, do not and cannot afford any redress; in others they do, but not always in so perfect a manner. (a) 2. Equity exercises an exclusive jurisdiction in all cases of mere equitable rights, that is, such rights as are not recognized in courts of law. Most of the cases of trust and confidence fall under this head. Its exclusive jurisdiction is also exercised in granting special relief beyond the reach of the common law. It will grant injunctions to prevent waste, or irreparable injury, or to secure a settled right, or to prevent vexatious litigations, or to compel the restitution of title deeds. It will appoint receivers of property, where it is in danger of misapplication; compel the surrender of securities improperly obtained; prohibit a party from leaving the country in order to avoid a suit; restrain the undue exercise of a legal right against conscience and equity; decree the specified performance of contracts respecting real estates; supply, in many cases, the imperfect execution of instruments, and reform and alter them according to the real intention of the parties; grant relief in the case of lost deeds or securities; and in all cases in which its interference is asked, its general rule is, that he who asks equity, must do equity. 3. Equity courts are also assistant to the jurisdiction of courts of law, in many cases, when the latter have no like authority. A court of equity will remove legal impediments to the fair decision of a question depending at law. It will perpetuate the testimony of witnesses to rights and titles which are in danger of being lost before the matter can be tried; prevent a party from improperly setting up, at a trial, some title or claim, which would be inequitable; compel a party to discover, on his oath, facts which he knows, material (a) This subject will be more fully considered in Book 5. No. 2544. Book 4, tit. 3, chap. 5, sec. 3. No. 2545. to the rights of the other party, but which a court of law cannot compel such party to discover; provide for the safety of property in dispute pending litigation; and counteract, control, or set aside fraudulent judg ments. 2544. In the several states there are other courts, created under their respective constitutions or statutes, which, though not strictly courts of equity, possess many equitable powers; such as orphans' courts, surrogate courts, registers' courts. These, like regular courts of equity, administer justice without the aid of jury. SECTION 3.-OF COURTS OF ADMIRALTY. 2545. Admiralty is the name of a jurisdiction, which takes cognizance of suits and actions which arise in consequence of acts done upon or relating to the sea; or, in other words, of all transactions and proceedings relative to commerce and navigation, and to damages and injuries upon the sea. (a) It In the great nations of Europe, the term "admiralty jurisdiction," is uniformly applied to courts exercising jurisdiction over maritime contracts and concerns. is familiarly known among the jurists of Scotland, England, France, Holland and Spain, as in the United States, and applied to their own courts, possessing substantially the same jurisdiction as did the English admiralty in the reign of Edward III.(b) The constitution of the United States has delegated to the courts of the national government cognizance of "all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," and the act of September 24, 1789, c. 20, s. 9, has given the district court "cognizance of all civil causes (a) De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gallis, 398; The Jefferson, 10 Wheat. 428; Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324; Thackarey v. The Farmer, Gilp. 529. (b) 2 Gall. 468. See Bac. Ab. Courts of Admiralty; Merl, Répert, h. t.; Encyclopédie, h. t. |