Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Earl of Oxford's case (1615) 21 ER 485 is a foundational case for the common law world, that held equity (equitable principle) takes precedence over the common law.. The Lord Chancellor held: "The Cause why there is Chancery is, for that Mens Actions are so divers[e] and infinite, that it is impossible to make any general Law which may aptly meet with every particular Act, and not fail in some ...
Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch D 9 is an English property law case about the effect of the Judicature Acts.It is the authority for the equitable maxim that "Equity regards as done that which ought to be done".
Equity is a roguish thing: for law we have a measure, know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is Chancellor, and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. ‘Tis all one, as if they should make his foot the standard for the measure we call a Chancellor's foot; what an uncertain measure would this be!
Tulk v Moxhay is a landmark English land law case which decided that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. a future owner will be subject to the restriction) in equity.
This is no more than the application of the equitable principle, and well-known aphorism, that "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done", [35] which in turn is related to the equitable maxims, "Equity sees that as done what ought to be done" and "Equity abhors a forfeiture".
It is a liberal process, founded upon large principles of equity, to be applied in cases where the legal owner cannot conscientiously keep the property for himself alone, but ought to allow another to have the property or the benefit of it or a share in it. The trust may arise at the outset when the property is acquired, or later on, as the ...
There were subsequently a host of exceptions to the Milroy v Lord rule. One, almost immediately from Strong v Bird was that if a debtor appointed to an estate as executor will have his debt forgiven if, and only if, the testator manifested an intention to forgive the debt and this intention continued until death.