Most people think of our courts as courts of law – places where we go to enforce legal rights and to seek remedies when our rights are violated. Historically, however, our court system is actually a combination of law courts and courts of equity. Courts of law are presided over by judges; courts of equity employ chancellors in the decision making role.
So where are these courts of equity? If you go over to Norristown (or West Chester, Doylestown, Media or Philadelphia, for that matter) you will find them in the same buildings as the law courts. In fact, they are the same courtrooms manned by the identical personnel. So, why the distinction?
Courts of equity are courts of limited jurisdiction which exist to grant forms of relief not historically within the purview of our law courts, such as injunctions, orders to account, enforcement of rights where actions at law are not sufficient to provide complete relief and so on. Courts of law for the most part are limited to monetary awards. The most common form of equitable relief is the injunction – a court order to do (or not do) some act or conduct. A court order requiring the performance of an affirmative act is known as a mandatory injunction; a court order prohibiting certain conduct is known as a prohibitory injunction.
There are many parallels between courts of law and courts of equity. While the notion of a statute of limitations is purely a legal concept (for example, cases for breach of contract must be brought generally within four years), equity has a similar requirement, albeit less specific, known as laches. In equity, the claimant must act promptly. While laches does not require a specific time to pass before a claim is deemed barred, one must not “sleep” on his or her rights to the point where the equities change. For example, if I have a valid claim and delay acting on it for too long, and an important witness for the other side dies or becomes unavailable, the doctrine of laches may bar my claim.
Another parallel between law and equity is the equitable doctrine of “unclean hands”. At law, if you are suing someone for negligence, and you yourself are negligent, your negligence may reduce or even prevent your recovery. Similarly, in equity, if you are guilty of misconduct (unclean hands) you may be precluded from receiving an equitable remedy.
So where are these courts of equity? If you go over to Norristown (or West Chester, Doylestown, Media or Philadelphia, for that matter) you will find them in the same buildings as the law courts. In fact, they are the same courtrooms manned by the identical personnel. So, why the distinction?
Courts of equity are courts of limited jurisdiction which exist to grant forms of relief not historically within the purview of our law courts, such as injunctions, orders to account, enforcement of rights where actions at law are not sufficient to provide complete relief and so on. Courts of law for the most part are limited to monetary awards. The most common form of equitable relief is the injunction – a court order to do (or not do) some act or conduct. A court order requiring the performance of an affirmative act is known as a mandatory injunction; a court order prohibiting certain conduct is known as a prohibitory injunction.
There are many parallels between courts of law and courts of equity. While the notion of a statute of limitations is purely a legal concept (for example, cases for breach of contract must be brought generally within four years), equity has a similar requirement, albeit less specific, known as laches. In equity, the claimant must act promptly. While laches does not require a specific time to pass before a claim is deemed barred, one must not “sleep” on his or her rights to the point where the equities change. For example, if I have a valid claim and delay acting on it for too long, and an important witness for the other side dies or becomes unavailable, the doctrine of laches may bar my claim.
Another parallel between law and equity is the equitable doctrine of “unclean hands”. At law, if you are suing someone for negligence, and you yourself are negligent, your negligence may reduce or even prevent your recovery. Similarly, in equity, if you are guilty of misconduct (unclean hands) you may be precluded from receiving an equitable remedy.
– Curt Ward