Maxim of equity

Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of

general principles or rules which are said to govern the
way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the
qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a
more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the
individual, inclined to take into account the parties
conduct and worthiness. They were developed by the
English Court of Chancery and other courts that
administer equity jurisdiction, including the law of trusts.
Although the most fundamental and time honored of the
maxims, listed on this page, are often referred to on their
own as the 'maxims of equity' or 'the equitable maxims', it
cannot be said that there is a definitive list of them. Like
other kinds of legal maxims or principles, they were
originally, and sometimes still are, expressed in Latin.

Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without

a remedy
When seeking an equitable relief, the one that has been
wronged has the stronger hand. The stronger hand is the
one that has the capacity to ask for a legal remedy . In
equity, this form of remedy is usually one of specific
performance or an injunction. These are superior
remedies to those administered at common law such
as damages. The Latin legal maxim is ubi jus ibi remediu
sometimes cited as ubi jus ibi remediam.
The maxim is necessarily subordinate to positive
principles and cannot be applied either to subvert
established rules of law or to give the courts
a jurisdiction hitherto unknown, and it is only in a general
not in a literal sense that the maxim has force.
Case law dealing with the principle of this maxim at law
include Ashby V. White and Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents. The application of this principle at law
was key in the decision ranging decision.
of Marbury v. Madison, wherein it was necessary to
establish that Marbury had a right to his commission in the
first place in order for Chief Justice Marshall to make his
more wide

Case references :

Name of the case : Ashby v. White

Name of the parties :
Plaintiff : MR. Ashby
Defended : William White

Facts of Ashby vs White Case

Mr Ashby was prevented from voting at an election by the
misfeasance of a constable, Mr White, on the apparent
pretext that he was not a settled inhabitant.
At the time, the case attracted considerable national
interest, and debates in Parliament. It was later known as
the Aylesbury election case. In the House of Lords, it
attracted the interest of Peter King, 1st Baron King who
spoke and maintained the right of electors to have
a remedy at common law for denial of their votes,
against Tory insistence on the privileges of the House of
Commons.
Sir Thomas Powys defended William White in the House
of Lords. The argument submitted was that the Commons
alone had the power to determine election cases, not the
courts

Decision of the case :

The defended had to give compensetion becouse of
violation of plaintiff’s right though there was no damage
Name of The Case :
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)

Name of the parties :

Plaintiff : Webster Bivens
Defended : Six Unknown Named
Agents
The name of the court :
US Supreme Court

Decision of the Case

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, laid
down a rule that it will infer a private right of
action for monetary damages where no other federal
remedy is provided for the vindication of a constitutional
right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there is
a remedy. The court reasoned based upon a presumption
that where there is a violation of a right, the plaintiff can
recover whatever he could recover under any civil action,
unless Congress has expressly curtailed that right of
recovery, or there exist some "special factors counseling
hesitation".

Equity delights in equality/Equality is equity

(Aequalitus est quasi equitas)
Where two persons have an equal right, the property will
be divided equally.
This maxim flows from the fundamental notion of equality
or impartiality due to the conception of Equity and is the
source of many equitable doctrines. The maxim is of very
wide application. The rule of ordinary law may give one
party an advantage over the other. But, the court of equity
where it can, put the litigating parties on a footing of
equality. Equity proceeds in the principle that a right or
liability should as far as possible, be equalized among all
interested. In the Simple Word's then Two parties have
equal Rights in any of property so the same was
distributed equal as per their concerned Law.
One who seeks equity must do equity
To receive equitable relief, the petitioning party must be
willing to complete all of its own obligations as well. The
applicant to a court of equity is just as much subject to the
power of that court as the defendant. This maxim may also
overlap with the clean hands maxim