i1.

One who seeks equity must do equity: this is “[p]erhaps one of the most basic
maxims of equity.” Anstalt v. Ness Energy Int’l, Inc., Case No. 10-1218-D (W.D.
Okla. Mar. 28, 2012). Simply put, a party petitioning the court for equitable relief
must be willing to fulfill all of its own obligations.

2. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy: “The equitable power of
a court is not bound by cast0iron rules but exists to do fairness and is flexible and
adaptable to particular exigencies so that relief will be granted when, in view of all
the circumstances, to deny it would permit one party to suffer a gross wrong at the
hands of the other.” PCS Nitrogen, Inc. v. R oss Dev. Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 611,
642 (D.S.C. 2015) (quoting Hooper v. Ebenezer Sr. Servs. & Rehab. Ctr., 386 S.C.
108 (2009)).

3. Equity regards as done what ought to be done: “It is a fiction of equity designed
to effectuate the obvious intention of the parties and to promote justice.” Rodeck v.
U.S., 697 F. Supp. 1508 (D. Minn. 1988).

4. Equity is a sort of equality: “As the FMCRA is silent on the question of priority,
and as ‘equity is equality,’ we find that the proper course here is to distribute the
limited funds on a ratable basis, such that each claimant receives ‘a share of the
fund proportionate to their share of the total judgment figure.’” Commercial Union
Ins. Co. v. U.S., 999 F.2d 581 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (citing Dobbs, The Law of
Remedies § 2.12 at 130).
5. Equity aids the vigilant, and not those who slumber on their rights: This is the
basis for the equitable defense of laches. See Eason v. Whitmer, Case No. 20-
12252 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 9, 2020) (quoting Hays v. Port of Seattle, 251 U.S. 233,
239 (1920)).

6. Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation: Near performance of a general

obligation is sufficient unless the law requires perfect performance. See Union
Trust Co. of Maryland v. Townsend, 101 F. 2d 903 (4th Cir. 1939).

7. Equity acts in personam: Equity acts on the duties of people, not objects, or
“[e]quity acts in personam, not in rem.” Diallo v. Redwood Invs., LLC, Case No.
18-cv-1793 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2019). Today, the term “people” includes legal
entities like corporations.

8. Equity abhors a forfeiture: Largely foreclosed (pun intended) today by statute,

the original theory was that if one failed to make a payment for property received
on time and had that property seized at law, they could pay the debt late and
recover the property in equity. Today, it may be more important to understand the
“exception to the general rule that ‘equity abhors a forfeiture’ . . . [which] states
that ‘forfeiture is favored, when, instead of working a loss or injury contrary to
equity, it promotes justice and equity and protects the owner against the
indifference, laches, and injurious conduct of the lessee.” Bezilla v. Tug Hill
Operating, LLC, Case No. 5:17-cv-123 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 13, 2017) (internal
citations omitted).
9. Equity does not require an idle gesture: “‘If the employee desires reinstatement
for strategic purposes, that is a valid basis for denial’ . . . ‘Equity does not engage
in idle gestures,’ and the Court will not order Plaintiff to work as a material handler
at Volvo without it being unambiguously clear that she still wants this job.” Arroyo
v. Volvo Grp. N. Am., LLC, Case No. 12-cv-6859 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 13, 2017) (internal
citations omitted).

10. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands: “The equitable defense
of unclean hands requires that ‘[h]e who comes into equity must come with clean
hands.’” E.O.H.C. ex rel. M.S.H.S. v. Barr, Case No. 5:19-cv-06144-JDW (E.D.
Pa. Jan. 22, 2020) (citing Keystone Driller Co. v. Genn. Excavator Co., 290 U.S.
240, 241 (1933).

11. Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves: “At the remedy stage – a
violation having been established – it may be appropriate to resolve marginal
doubts against the wrongdoers. Courts should not be gruding in remedying
injustice. ‘Equity delights to do justice, and not by halves.’” Jeffers v. Clinton, 756
F. Supp. 1195 (E.D. Ark. 1990).

12. Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits: Good luck today
with this one. While the spirit of this maxim may remain alive, it has largely been
subsumed by rules concerning MDL, class actions, collective actions, and case law
on the topic. “This case does not come within the principle that equity will take
jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits.” Ohio Farmers’ Ins. v. Yoas, 65 F.2d
651 (9th Cir. 1933).

13. Equity follows the law: “As Justice Story explained, ‘[w]here a rule [of] . . . the
statute law is direct and governs the case with all its circumstances, or the
particular point, a court of equity is as much bound by it, as a court of law.’” Ibson
v. United Healthcare Servs., Inc., 877 F.3d 384 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Joseph
Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 64 (12th ed. 1877).

14. Equity will not assist a volunteer: “An unjust enrichment claim will not lie,
however, if the benefit is conferred ‘by a volunteer or intermeddler.’” Al-Sabah v.
World Bus. Lenders, LLC, Case No. SAG-18-2958 (D. Md. Jul. 9, 2020). And
conversely, in restitution claims, equity will not create a quasi-contract to a
promisee if no consideration was provided (a “volunteer” in 18th Century English).

15. Equity will not complete an imperfect gift: “Equity will not make [a trust]
where none has been clearly declared. A defective or imperfect gift will not be
converted into a trust.” Weil v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 82 F.2d 561
(5th Cir. 1936).
16. Where equities are equal, the law will prevail: “In any event the equity of the
taxpayer is no greater than that of the United States and when equities are equal,
the legal title will prevail.” Travel Industries of Kansas v. U.S., 425 F.2d 1297
(10th Cir. 1970).

17. Between equal equities the first in order of time shall prevail: The general
principle with regard to real property is “first in time, first in right.” Bank of Am.,
N.A. v. Esplanade at Damonte Ranch Homeowners’ Ass’n, 3:16-CV-00116-RCJ-
VPC (D. Nev. May 23, 2017). Comparing timing with legal and equitable claims,
“[u]nder the common law, an earlier claim had priority over a later claim if both
claims were legal claims . . . The same was true if both claims were equitable . . .
[order in time] only mattered under the common law where [one party] had a legal
claim and a competing earlier claim to the property was purely equitable.” Id.

18. Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud: “Courts of
equity, independently of any statute, will relieve against fraud, if proceedings are
seasonably brought after its discovery. Indeed, to use the language of Lord
Cottenham, a court of equity will wrest property fraudulently acquired, not only
from the perpetrator of the fraud, but ‘from his children and his children’s
children,’ or, as was said in another English case, ‘from any person to whom he
may have parcelled out the fruits of his fraud.’” Citizens Bank v. Leffler, 228 Md.
262, 269 (Md. 1962).

19. Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee: Even if a trustee dies
before the creation of a testamentary trust, for example, or if the trustee is
incompetent at the time she accepts the position, these failures would not cause the
creation of the trust to fail. See, e.g., Fulk & Needham, Inc. v. U.S., 288 F. Supp.
39, 44 (M.D.N.C. 1968).

20. Equity regards the beneficiary as the true owner: Another historical maxim that
no longer applies—common law once provided no action by the beneficiary of a
trust against the trustee, but that has since changed with the common law claim for
breach of fiduciary duty.
 Common law is majorly systematized in that it has a structure/a defined
space within which the enforcers can operate (i.e stare decisis).
 Anything codified in systematized. Codification consists of the system of
highly prescriptive laws with narrow abilities and space for interpretation.

Common Law/Equity: A History

 Norman conquest leads to the introduction of feudalism with a king as well
as feudal land. Thus why the King is viewed as a Feudal Lord.
o Feudalism is a cascading/hierarchical relationship of a
proprietary nature that creates legal implications and affects how
the legal system is structured.
o The hierarchy of property ownership: Lords-Earls-Dukes-Knights-
Peasants.
o Radical title refers to residuary and supreme state interest in land: ie
all consequent interest- typically with respect to territory- is subject to
the ‘State’. It overrides all other interests over time.
o In feudal era, the King had radicle title to the land and resources in the
Kingdom thus why he was able to pass the interests down to vassals.
o Immediate grantees were those who got land directly from the king.
They were considered Tenants in Capite. These were the people who
were part of the King’s council as well/Curiae Regis. King’s Council
had plenary jurisdiction meaning they had administrative, legislative
and judicial jurisdiction.
o Residuary interest- remaining interest when the other expires.
o The remainder man: the entity which retains last surviving and lasting
rights in property.
 Over time, the common methods of dispensation of justice through the
Curiae Regis became too inflexible/unwieldy as the Curiae Regis became
too bulky.
 The Curiae regis was thus broken down into smaller councils to enable
expediency and efficiency.
 Small councils had standardized rules/ like rules for like cases in rendering
decisions. This practice ended up being the foundation of stare decisis.
 The smaller councils then developed branches for diverse functions that It
has to carry out. Some branches:
o Exchequer: Dealt with the finances of the Kingdom.
o Court of Common Pleas- heard cases without writs and was mainly
meant to accommodate the commoner. Had a quasi-equitable
jurisdiction. The overall of the Curiae Regis curtailed the powers of
the Court of Common Pleas which retarded its development. The
Statute of Westminster also led to the development of writs in
consimili casu meaning the writs could be issued on the action rather
than on a case-by-case basis.
o Court of Chancery- it was an extension of the Court of Common Pleas
and was meant to correct the restriction placed on the quasi equitable
jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas. The Common Law courts
also declined to make use of the Statute of Westminster which further
weakened the available avenues of equitable justice. The Courts of
Chancery could hear cases for the following reasons:
 Remedy completely unavailable on established law.
 If the remedy/outcome was harsh in a common law court.
 If one was poor.
 If one was a foreigner.
 In cases of Fraud and forgery.
 The rights of beneficiaries or user
The Earl of Oxford Case of 1615 after the Oxford Provisions
(structured governance and checks and balances of power)p t
in 1258, the legitimacy of Equity with Lord Elsmere ruling that
equitable principle had precedence over Common Law
o King’s Court- Constituted by the King-in-council. It was headed by
the King. It dealt with causes in which the King was involved.It had
the jurisdiction to hear criminal matters in general. This was mostly
because the English Law defined all crimes to have been committed
‘In the peace of the King.’
 Existence of restricted reliefs in common law with only
residuary jurisdiction to the King under curia regis as he was
considered the parens patriae (i.e he was the protector of all
subjects). This came along as a result of then writ structure.
Socio economic factors like poverty also played a hand (i.e
poverty, the administrative influence of defendants, status or
capacity- i.e women were considered to be femme covert and
by extension of the principle of coverture quote- ‘a man and a
 woman are one and the man is that one’ meaning women
couldn’t sue or be sued).
 The King began to exercise this residuary interest through the
Chancellor. The chancellor was a cleric of high rank which
established the presumption that he is free from secular
interests/influences and that he was a person of right conscience
(i.e he was also the keeper of the king’s confessions) and
further was the keeper of the Great Seal and was an
accomplished lawyer- this was the reason as to why he was
entrusted with this role.
o
 FATE OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY
 Section 3 of the Judicature Act stipulates that equity only applies in so far as
common law doesn’t. However, in the Earl of Oxford case it was so decided
by King James upon reference from Lord Ellesmere that Equity takes
precedent over common law.