Differences between law and equity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Differences between law and equity - Essay Example It mainly came out of feudal customs. On the other side Equity came from Roman law and Canon Law. Common law also differs with Equity in the sense that Equity comprised of the principles of rules administered by the Court of Chancery and consisted of that portion of natural justice which, although of a nature suitable for judicial enforcement, was for historical reasons not enforced by the common Law Courts. There is also another difference that the defects and rigidity of the old Common Law gave rise to Equity. Underhill has very well summarized the difference between Common Law and Equity in these words: - "Equity was originally the revolt of Commonsense against the pedantry of Law, and trammels of the feudal system, it became highly artificial refined body of legal principles and is at present day an amendment and modification of the Common Law" 2. The Plaintiff used to go to the Common Law Courts as a matter of right while the person seeking relief in the Court of Chancery humbly prayed for the benefit of the Court's grace by invoking the exercise of its prerogative. Thus, it was the discretion of the equity Court (i.e. Chancery Court) to give remedies to the petitioner or not. 3. 3. In Common law Courts the misconduct of the plaintiff did not disentitle him to claim legal relief but in the Court of Chancery misconduct of the plaintiff was taken as a sufficient ground for the refusal of equitable reliefs. 1. A. Ahmad, Equity and Trusts, p 36 2. Osborne Law dictionaries 3. Ibid. 4. The pronouncement of the Common Law Courts altered the legal title to the property as between the parties to the action but the Chancery Court bound the person only by its decree, directing him to transfer the legal title by executing a conveyance. 5. Common Law sprang from feudal customs, while equity sprang from Roman andCanon law 6. Common Law involved a complicated procedure of tendering evidence. But theCourts of Chancery had no procedural complication evidence. 7. In common law courts, judges used to preside over, while in courts of equity thepresiding officer was the Chancellor being a judge. 8. Common law was generated by the forms of action, and that forms of actioncombined substance and procedure while, a writ, obtained from chancery,structured according to a fixed form, and initiated a cause of action. 9. Common law was rigid and limited while, equity law was flexible. 10. The court of equity flourished independently of the common law courts. "Justice" could be dispensed in Chancery. The most powerful device available to the court of equity was the injunction--to forbid,