Editing Equity (law) (section)

=== United States ===

In modern practice, perhaps the most important distinction between law and equity is the set of remedies each offers. The most common civil remedy a court of law can award is monetary damages. Equity, however, enters injunctions or decrees directing someone either to act or to forbear from acting. Often, this form of relief is in practical terms more valuable to a litigant; for example, a plaintiff whose neighbor will not return his only milk cow, which had wandered onto the neighbor's property, may want that particular cow back, not just its monetary value. However, in general, a litigant cannot obtain equitable relief unless there is "no adequate remedy at law"; that is, a court will not grant an injunction unless monetary damages are an insufficient remedy for the injury in question. Law courts can also enter certain types of immediately enforceable orders, called "[[writ]]s" (such as a writ of [[habeas corpus]]), but they are less flexible and less easily obtained than an [[injunction]].

Another distinction is the unavailability of a jury in equity: the judge is the [[trier of fact]].<ref name="Von_Mehren_Page_4">{{cite book |last1=von Mehren |first1=Arthur T. |last2=Murray |first2=Peter L. |author1-link=Arthur Taylor von Mehren |author2-link=Peter L. Murray |title=Law in the United States |date=2007 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9781139462198 |page=4 |edition=2nd |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9tpJlKdqVTsC&pg=PA4}}</ref> In the American legal system, the right of [[jury trial]] in civil cases tried in federal court is guaranteed by the [[Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Seventh Amendment]] ''in Suits at common law'', cases that traditionally would have been handled by the law courts. The question of whether a case should be determined by a jury depends largely on the type of relief the plaintiff requests. If a plaintiff requests damages in the form of money or certain other forms of relief, such as the return of a specific item of property, the remedy is considered legal, and a jury is available as the fact-finder. On the other hand, if the plaintiff requests an [[injunction]], [[declaratory judgment]], [[specific performance]], modification of contract, or some other non-monetary relief, the claim would usually be one in equity.

[[Thomas Jefferson]] explained in 1785 that there are three main limitations on the power of a [[court of equity]]: "If the legislature means to enact an injustice, however palpable, the court of Chancery is not the body with whom a correcting power is lodged. That it shall not interpose in any case which does not come within a general description and admit of redress by a general and practicable rule."<ref>{{cite letter | url=https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0056 | first=Thomas | last=Jefferson | recipient=Phillip Mazzei | subject=To Philip Mazzei | date=November 1785}}</ref> The US Supreme Court, however, has concluded that courts have wide discretion to fashion relief in cases of equity. The first major statement of this power came in ''[[Willard v. Tayloe]]'', 75 U.S. 557 (1869). The Court concluded that "relief is not a matter of absolute right to either party; it is a matter resting in the discretion of the court, to be exercised upon a consideration of all the circumstances of each particular case."<ref name="Willard565">{{cite court | litigants=Willard v. Tayloe | date=1869 | reporter={{law report |75|U.S.|557}}}}</ref> ''Willard v. Tayloe'' was for many years the leading case in [[contract]] law regarding intent and enforcement.<ref name="Dawson32">{{cite journal | first=John P. | last=Dawson | title=Judicial Revision of Frustrated Contracts: The United States | journal=Boston University Law Review | volume=64 | issue=1 | date=January 1984 | page=32 | url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/bulr64&div=9&start_page=1&collection=journals |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | title=Events Subsequent to the Contract As a Defence to Specific Performance | journal=Columbia Law Review | volume=16 | issue=5 | date=May 1916 | page=411 | doi=10.2307/1110409 | jstor=1110409}}</ref> as well as equity.<ref name="Dawson32"/><ref name="Renner">{{cite book | first=Shirley | last=Renner | title=Inflation and the Enforcement of Contracts | location=Cheltenham, England | publisher=Elgar | date=1999 | page=20 | series=New Horizons in Law and Economics | isbn=978-1-84064-062-5}}</ref>

In the United States, the federal courts and most state courts have merged law and equity into courts of general jurisdiction, such as county courts. However, the substantive distinction between law and equity has retained its old vitality.<ref>See, e.g., {{cite court | litigants=Sereboff v. Mid Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. | reporter={{law report|547|US|356}} | year=2006}} (Roberts CJ for a unanimous court) (reviewing the scope of equitable relief as authorized by the ERISA statute).</ref> This difference is not a mere technicality, because the successful handling of certain law cases is difficult or impossible unless a temporary restraining order (TRO) or preliminary injunction is issued at the outset, to restrain someone from fleeing the jurisdiction taking the only property available to satisfy a judgment, for instance. Furthermore, certain statutes like the [[Employee Retirement Income Security Act]] specifically authorize ''only'' equitable relief, which forces American courts to analyze in lengthy detail whether the relief demanded in particular cases brought under those statutes would have been available in equity.<ref>{{cite court | litigants=Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson | reporter={{law report|534|US|204}} | year=2002}}</ref>

Equity courts were widely distrusted in the northeastern United States following the American Revolution. A serious movement for merger of law and equity began in the states in the mid-19th century, when [[David Dudley Field II]] convinced New York State to adopt what became known as the [[Field Code]] of 1848.<ref>{{cite book | first=Douglas | last=Laycock | title=Modern American Remedies: Cases and materials | edition=3rd | publisher=Aspen Press | year=2002 | page=[https://archive.org/details/modernamericanre00layc/page/370 370] | isbn=0735524696 | url-access=registration | url=https://archive.org/details/modernamericanre00layc/page/370 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | first=Kellen | last=Funk | title=Equity without Chancery: The Fusion of Law and Equity in the Field Code of Civil Procedure, New York 1846–76 | journal=Journal of Legal History | date=2015 | pages=152–191 | doi=10.1080/01440365.2015.1047560 | volume=36 | issue=2 | ssrn=2600201| s2cid=142977209 }}</ref> The federal courts did not abandon the old law/equity separation until the promulgation of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] in 1938.

Three states still have separate courts for law and equity: [[Delaware]], whose [[Delaware Court of Chancery|Court of Chancery]] is where most cases involving [[Delaware corporation]]s (which includes a disproportionate number of multi-state corporations) are decided; [[Courts of Mississippi|Mississippi]]; and [[Courts of Tennessee|Tennessee]].<ref>Sources that mention four states (e.g., Laycock 2002) generally include [[Courts of Arkansas|Arkansas]], which abolished its separate chancery courts as of January 1, 2002. {{cite web|url=http://courts.state.ar.us/circuitcourt/index.cfm |access-date=July 3, 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110804025412/http://courts.state.ar.us/circuitcourt/index.cfm |archive-date=August 4, 2011 | title=Circuit Court | publisher=Arkansas Judiciary }}</ref> However, merger in some states is less than complete; some other states (such as Illinois and [[New Jersey]]) have separate divisions for legal and equitable matters in a single court.  Virginia had separate law and equity dockets (in the same court) until 2006.<ref>Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Rule 3:1. See also {{cite journal |first=W. H. |last=Bryson |url=https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1068&context=law-faculty-publications |title=The Merger of Common-Law and Equity Pleading in Virginia |journal=University of Richmond Law Review |volume=41 |pages=77–82 |year=2006}}</ref> Besides [[corporate law]], which developed out of the [[Trust law|law of trusts]], areas traditionally handled by chancery courts included [[Will (law)|wills]] and [[probate]], [[adoption]]s and [[guardianship]]s, and [[marriage]] and [[divorce]]. [[Bankruptcy]] was also historically considered an equitable matter; although [[bankruptcy in the United States]] is today a purely federal matter, reserved entirely to the [[United States Bankruptcy Courts]] by the enactment of the [[United States Bankruptcy Code]] in 1978, bankruptcy courts are still officially considered "courts of equity" and exercise equitable powers under Section 105 of the Bankruptcy Code.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Hawes|first1=Lesley Anne|title=Another Conflict in the Circuits Brewing Over Bankruptcy Court's Equitable Powers Under §105(a)|url=http://www.abfjournal.com/articles/another-conflict-in-the-circuits-brewing-over-bankruptcy-courts-equitable-powers-under-%C2%A7105a/|website=ABF Journal|access-date=18 June 2015|date=January–February 2013|archive-date=19 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150619010912/http://www.abfjournal.com/articles/another-conflict-in-the-circuits-brewing-over-bankruptcy-courts-equitable-powers-under-%C2%A7105a/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

After US courts merged law and equity, American law courts adopted many of the procedures of equity courts. The procedures in a court of equity were much more flexible than the courts at common law. In American practice, certain devices such as [[joinder]], [[counterclaim]], [[cross-claim]] and [[interpleader]] originated in the courts of equity.