RULES AND MAXIMS. In the administra tion of the jurisdiction, there are certain rules and maxims which are of special sig nificance.
First. Equity having once had jurisdic tion of a subject-matter because there was no remedy at law, or because the remedy is inadequate, does not lose the jurisdiction merely because the courts of law afterwards give the same or a similar relief.
Second. Equity follows the law. This Is true as a general maxim. Equity follows the law, except in relation to those matters which give a title to equitable relief be cause the rules of law would operate to sanc tion fraud or injustice in the particular case.
Third. Between equal equities, the law must prevail. The ground upon which the suitor comes into the court of equity is that he is entitled to relief there. But if his ad versary has an equally equitable case, the complainant has no title to relief.
It has been said that the maxim that where equities are equal relief will be denied does not apply to a suit to reform a deed ; Union Ice Co. v. Doyle, 6 Cal. App. 284, 92 Pac. 112.
Fourth. Equality is equity: applied to cases of contribution, apportionment of mon eys due among those liable or benefited by the payment, abatement of claims on account of deficiency of the means of payment, etc.
Fifth. He who seeks equity must do equi ty. A party cannot claim the interposition of the court for relief unless he will do what it is equitable should be done by him as a condition precedent to that relief. See the eleventh maxim, infra.
See General Proprietors of Eastern Divi sion of New Jersey v. Force's Ex'rs, 72 N. J. Eq. 56, 127, 68 Atl. 914. This maxim applies to one seeking equitable relief, whether he be plaintiff or defendant ; Union Stock Yards Nat. Bank v. Day, 79 Neb. 845, 113 N. W. 530 (where in an action of ejectment an equi table defence was pleaded). It was also ap plied in refusing to permit plaintiff to dis miss after having acquired advantage from the suit; Johnson City Southern Ry. Co. v. R. Co., 148 N. C. 59, 61 S. E. 683.
Birth. Equity considers that as done which ought to have been done. A maxim of much more limited application than might at first be supposed from the broad terms in which it is expressed. In favor of parties
who would have had a benefit from some thing contracted to be done, and who have an equitable right to have the case consider ed as if it had been done, equity applies this maxim. Illustration : when there is an agreement for a sale of land, and the vendor dies, the land may be treated as money, and the proceeds of the sale, when completed, go to the distributees of personal estate, instead of to the heir. If the vendee die before the completion of the purchase, the purchase money may be treated as land for the benefit of the heir.
Seventh. Equity will not permit a wrong without a remedy.
Eighth. Equity regards the spirit and not the letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather than the circumstance, as it is variously expressed by different courts. See Moring v. Privott, 146 N. C. 558, 60 S. E. 509; Clinton v. Winnard, 135 Ill. App. 274; Curtin v. Krohn, 4 Cal. App. 131, 87 Pac. 243.
Ninth. Where equities are equal the first in time prevails--qui prior est in tempore, potior est in jure.
Tenth. Equity imputes an intention to per form an obligation.
Eleventh. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The inequity which deprives a suitor of a right to relief in a court of equity is not general iniquitous con duct unconnected with the cause of action, but evil practice or wrong-doing in the par ticular matter as to which judicial protec tion or redress is sought ; Liverpool & Lon don & Globe Ins. Co. v. Clunie, 88 Fed. 160 ; Woodward v. Woodward, 41 N. J. Eq. 224, 4 Atl. 424; or where there is some duty spring ing from the relations of the parties; Cun ningham v. Pettigrew, 109 Fed. 335, 94 C. C. A. 457. A good illustration is found in Tole do Computing Scale Co. v. Scale Co., 142 Fed. 919, 74 C. C. A. 89, where it was held that the manufacturers of a "butcher's com puting scale," who advertised it as making a profit for butchers by counting fractions against the purchaser, could not have equi table relief against a competitor for calling attention to the fraudulent character of such scale. See CLEAN HANDS.