We've talked a bunch about jurisdiction and you'll talk a lot more about it first year. This section has nothing to do with jurisdiction. In this section we're going to talk about the courts of equity. You've probably never heard of courts of equity because most states have merged their equity courts into their law courts, but in 17th century England law and equity were two distinct entities.

In the past, the law courts of England derived their power to hear cases from the King, just as today's courts get their ultimate power from the State.

The common law system of bringing suits in the King's courts was extremely confining and only allowed certain well defined types of cases and defenses. If a party's claim or defense did not fit into a strict form the court could not hear it. You can imagine that this frustrated parties to no end. If a defendant owed a plaintiff money and the plaintiff couldn't fit his case into a certain form, then there was no way for him to get the money! Similarly, if a defendant had a defense that didn't fit he'd have to pay - even if the result would be inequitable. =)

At this time, the King had a chancellor that acted as his head of state. Remember that the ultimate power of the courts came from the King. So, if you couldn't get justice in the courts, you could go make a pitiful and obsequious petition to the King for justice: "Oh, Great Majesty, in your Supreme Knowledge and auspicious nature I pray you grant me, your miserable servant . . . " You get the picture. The King could grant an equitable result. Over time, the King delegated this equitable power to the chancellor (Was he too busy playing polo?). Now, the chancellor could hear these petitions. After a while, a special court grew up to hear these equitable petitions.

In modern times many equitable actions still exist. For example, an injunction is an equitable action. Basically, an injunction is command by a court ordering a party to perform or stop the performance of a particular action. You might hear about an injunction issuing from a court ordering a large chemical manufacturer to stop dumping waste into a stream. Injunctions often issue in contract cases: A party might petition a court for an injunction to prevent a second party from performing services for a third party because the first and second parties had previously contracted for the exclusive performance of the services.

It's important to understand the difference between an equitable and a legal action. When a plaintiff seeks legal relief she usually wants money damages. When a plaintiff seeks equitable relief she is searching for something besides money damages. Maybe she is seeking an injunction or maybe she is asking the court to nullify a contract or to redraw a contract or to deliver a piece of land, or to specifically perform a contract - i.e. to perform exactly what a contract calls for. All of these are equitable remedies. A good rule of thumb is that legal actions result in money changing hands, equitable actions are everything else.

How does all this fit into civil procedure? We'll that's a good question. . .eh . . .well. Equitable v. legal actions are a very practical side of the law that practicing lawyers consider often when deciding a course of action. I.e., from the decision to bring a suit to its eventual disposition by the court, the choice of an equitable or legal remedy affects the entire path of the case. The way that the plaintiff and defendant plead is based in legal and equitable considerations. Further, the ultimate order by the court will be either legal or equitable. Either the plaintiff will get damages or the court will use its equitable powers to grant relief. So, just be aware that there are two courts: Legal and Equitable. And remember that equitable relief is just about everything the court can do besides grant damages, the legal remedy.