JURISDICTION. It is difficult• to reduce a jurisdiction so extensive and of such diverse component parts to a rigid and precise clas sification. But an approach to it may be made. The general nature of the jurisdic tion has already been indicated. It exists— First, for the purpose of compelling a dis covery from the defendant, respecting the truth of the matters alleged against him, by an appeal to his conscience to speak the truth. The discovery is enforced by requir ing an answer to the allegations in the plain tiff's complaint, in order that the plaintiff may use the matters disclosed in the answer, as admissions of the defendant, and, thus, evi• deuce is secured for the plaintiff, either in connection with and in aid of other evidence offered by the plaintiff, or to supply the want of other evidence on his part ; or it may be to avoid the expense to which the plaintiff must be put in procuring other evidence, to sustain his case.
When the plaintiff's complaint, otherwise called a bill, prays for relief in the same suit, the statements of the defendant in his an swer are considered by the court in forming a judgment upon the whole case. A party, if uncertain to what specific relief he is enti tled, may frame his bill with an alternative prayer for relief ; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756, 763, 5 Sup. Ct. 771, 28 L. Ed. 1141; but he may not recognize a transaction and pray for the enforcement of his rights thereunder and ask that it be set aside as a fraud, par ticularly without specifying in what particu lar ; Cella v. Brown, 144 Fed. 742, 75 C. C. A. 608.
To a certain extent, the statements of the defendant in answer to the bill are evi dence for himself also.
The discovery which may be required is not only of facts within the knowledge of the defendant, but may, also, be of deeds and other writings in his possession.
The right to discovery is not, however, an unlimited one: as, for instance, the de fendant is not bound to make a discovery which would subject him to punishment, nor, ordinarily, to discover the title upon which he relies in his defence ; nor is the plaintiff entitled to require the production of all papers which he may desire to look into. The limits of the right deserve care ful consideration. The discovery, when had, may be the foundation of equitable relief in the same suit, in which case it may be con nected with all the classes of cases in which relief is sought ; or it may be for the pur pose of being used in some other court, in which case the jurisdiction is designated as an assistant jurisdiction. Since the new
statutes on the 'admission of evidence of par ties, bills of discovery have practically fallen into disuse. See DISCOVERY.
Second, where the courts of law do not, or did not, recognize any right, and there fore could give no remedy, but where the courts of equity recognize equitable rights and, of course, give equitable relief. This has been denominated the exclusive juris diction. In this class are trusts, charities, forfeited and imperfect mortgages, penalties and forfeitures, imperfect consideration.
Uses and trusts have been supposed to have had their origin in the restrictions laid by parliament upon conveyances in mort main,—that is, to the church for charitable, or rather for ecclesiastical, mirposes.
It may well be that the doctrine of equita ble titles and estates, unknown to the com mon law but which could be enforced in chancery, had its origin in conveyances to individuals for the use of the church in or der to avoid the operation of these restric tions,—the conscience of the feofee being bound to permit the church to have the use according to the design and intent of the feoffment.
But conveyances in trust for the use of the church were not by any means the only cases in which it was desirable to convey I the legal title to one for the use of another. In many instances, such a conveyance offered a convenient mode of making provision for those who, from any circumstances, were (unable to manage property advantageously for themselves, or to whom it was not de sirable to give the control of it; and the propriety in all such cases of some protec tion to the beneficiary is quite apparent. The court of chancery, by recognizing that he had an interest of an equitable character which could be protected and enforced against the holder of the legal title, exercised a jurisdiction to give relief in cases which the courts of common law could not reach, consistently with their principles and modes of procedure.