Editing Maxims of equity (section)

==Role of maxims==
Maxims of equity are not a rigid set of rules, but are, rather, general principles which can be derived from in specific cases.<ref>See J Martin, ''Hanbury and Martin's Modern Equity'' (19th edn Sweet and Maxwell 2012) 1-024</ref> Snell's ''Equity'', an English treatise, takes the view that the "Maxims do not cover the whole ground, and moreover they overlap, one maxim contains by implication what belongs to another. Indeed it would not be difficult to reduce all under two: '[[#Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy|Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy]]' and '[[#Equity acts in personam (i.e. on persons rather than on objects)|Equity acts ''in personam'']] [on persons]{{'"}}.<ref>{{cite book|title=Snell's Principles of Equity|edition = 25 |last1=Snell|first1=Edmund Henry Turner|last2= Megarry|first2=R.E.|last3=Baker|first3= P.V. |year= 1960|publisher= Sweet & Maxwell|location= London|ol=21567635M |page=24}}</ref>

[[Jeffrey Hackney]] has argued that maxims are more harmful than helpful in understanding equitable principles:<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hackney |first1=Jeffrey |title=Understanding Equity and Trusts |publisher=Fontana |year=1987 |isbn=0-00-686072-9 |page=29}}</ref>
{{blockquote|Apart from a vigorous life in law examinations at the pen of weaker candidates, most maxims do not today greatly figure in judicial language, and their principal harm is, by their banality, to reduce manifestations of justice to the level of simple chatter, and thereby to devalue the underlying conscience.}}