Land was held under Common law and equity prior to chain of feudal relations. By virtue of section 79 of the Common Law Procedure Act ofCommon law courts possessed a limited power of issuing injunctions while the Chancery Amendment Act of gave the court of Chancery power to issue or award damages as opposed to specific performance and injunctions.
There, burning legal problems were informally discussed, and guidance was given to all concerning the decisions of actual or likely cases. The court flourished in the 17th century until the English Civil Wars —51when the procedure by which it operated was abolished.
The newer courts were described as prerogative courts because they were identified with the royal executive power, though some of them had a statutory origin. Political power was rural and based on landownership.
Bracton abstracted several thousand cases from court records plea rolls as the raw material for his book. Scholars such as Professor Birks and Professor Burrows argue that in many cases the inclusion of the label "legal" or "equitable" before a substantive rule is often unnecessary.
However, if the land was transferred to another person prior to death, these could be avoided. In legal actions to recover land were subjected to time limits. But the rule has received a like extension in our courts of intermediate appeal.
But whatever the rule in Thomas v. The principle of equity was as old as the common law, but it was hardly needed until the 14th century, since the law was still relatively fluid and informal.
It was noted by Lord Diplock in United Scientific c Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council7 that the Judicature Act brought about the fussing of adjectival law system and the substantive law which were formerly administered under the courts of Chancery and court of law.
Later decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts.
In England, the old customary law applied by the central courts at Westminster was too firmly entrenched to be lightly overthrown, but even here the development of written pleadings and new, speedier remedies had a transforming effect.
Precedent was being followed, and law reports of equity decisions and books on equity began to be published. Once the law has been altered or changed during the ongoing case, the law will then be enforceable on all other cases henceforth with similar evidence and situations.
Superior Court, Cal. In almost all areas of the law even those where there is a statutory framework, such as contracts for the sale of goods,  or the criminal law legislature-enacted statutes generally give only terse statements of general principle, and the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the interstitial common law.
Like many other early legal systems, it did not originally consist of substantive rights but rather of procedural remedies. By the early 20th century, largely at the urging of Oliver Wendell Holmes as discussed throughout this articlethis view had fallen into the minority view: In an English case, Winterbottom v.
The plea rolls formed an almost unbroken series from and included the writ, pleadings, verdict, and judgment of each civil action. Law thus began to emerge as a profession, which required permanent institutions and some kind of organized legal education.
A string of cases in the s saw the High Court of Australia re-affirm the continuing vitality of traditional equitable doctrines. Common grounds for relief, however, came to be recognized. Government was centralized, a bureaucracy built up, and written records maintained.
Smith, supra is not inherently a destructive instrument. Because the defendant could file an answer, a system of written pleadings developed. Additionally, the series of Poor Laws enacted in the late 16th century remedied the neglect of the poor caused by the dissolution of the monasteries.
One Chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority However, the substantive distinction between law and equity has retained its old vitality.Equity’s primacy in England was later enshrined in the Judicature Acts (), which provided that equity and common law could both be operated in the same court and there would no longer be different procedures for requesting remedies from equity and the common law.
Another difference between common law and equitable rights is the concept of trust. According to Haley and McMurtry [ 5 ], “the concept of the trust has been the vehicle for much creative activity on the part of the courts of equity".
Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, and the precedent originating from it, as the default law, because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state.
Jurisdictions which have inherited the common law system differ in their current treatment of equity. Over the course of the twentieth century some common law systems began to place less emphasis on the historical or institutional origin of substantive legal rules.
In England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, equity remains a distinct body of law.Download