Territory, the District Court of Porto Rico, the District Court of Hawaii, the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

The remedial process of courts of equity, admits, and generally requires, that all persons having an interest shall be made parties, and makes allowance for amendments by summoning and discharging parties after the commencement of the suit. Its final remedial process is varied so as to enable the courts to do that equitable justice between the parties which the case demands, by "commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong."

The system of equity jurisprudence has been amplified and modified by the more modern decisions and there are instances where judges sitting in equity, with the concurrence of the lawyers, invent and adopt new but appropriate remedies. It is a principle of equitable jurisdiction that where there is no adequate remedy at law, the court must take jurisdiction, or otherwise the damage would be irreparable. It is a general rule of equity that a litigant shall not come into a court of equity to establish a legal right, unless he has tried his title at law; but this is not so general an objection as always to prevail, for there have been a variety of cases both ways. A court of equity has no jurisdiction to prevent the commission of acts which are merely criminal or merely illegal, and do not affect any rights of property, but it will by injunction restrain the unlawful use of a plaintiff's property in his name, trade-mark, letters, or photograph or to prevent the improper use of information obtained in the course of confidential employment.

Francis' Maxims which have been adopted by courts of equity have had considerable influence on the development of the system. They are such as these:

Equity once having jurisdiction does not lose jurisdiction. Equity follows the law.

Where there is equal equity the law must prevail.

He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

Equality is equity.

He who seeks equity must do equity.

Equity regards that as done which ought to be done. The general nature and jurisdiction of equity exists for the purpose of compelling a discovery from the defendant, respecting the truth of the matters alleged against him, by an appeal to his conscience. The discovery requires an answer to the complaint, in order that the plaintiff may use the disclosures as admissions of the defendant. In forming judgment upon the case the court considers the statements in the defendant's answer as evidence for himself also. In addition to requiring a statement of facts the discovery may call for the production of books or papers, but the defendant need not furnish deeds or other writings which would subject him to punishment, or to reveal the titles upon which he relies for his defence. The plaintiff cannot call for papers which he may desire to examine.

No state statute giving one of its courts exclusive jurisdiction of a certain class of litigation can impair the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. No state statute enlarging the powers of common law can impair the jurisdiction of a Federal court of equity. No state statute diminishing or destroying an equitable remedy, or in any way regulating the practice of equity, can have any effect upon the jurisdiction or practice of the Federal courts.

A court of the United States through a spirit of judicial fairness, will usually refuse to interfere with property in the custody of a state court. Conversely, it will not tolerate interference by a state court with property over which it has taken jurisdiction.

Federal courts of equity usually follow by analogy state statutes of limitations, especially in foreclosure suits against executors and administrators; but, at least when their jurisdiction is not concurrent with courts of law, they do not consider themselves bound by such statutes. It has been said that a Federal court of equity will never follow a state statute of limitations when thereby manifest wrong and injustice would be wrought. A state statute of limitations

cannot bar the United States; but the United States may take advantage of a state statute of limitations.

If a new right is created by the customary or statute law of a State, the Federal courts will enforce it at law or equity, if it falls within the remedies authorized by either branch of their jurisdiction.

The Federal court has followed a state statute providing, if by mistake a suit was brought in equity which should have been brought at common law, that there should be no abatement, but that the cause be transferred to the common-law docket.

Modern practice has not wiped out the distinction between legal and equitable actions. They are commenced in the same court and in the same way. In every form of action the facts constituting the cause of action or defence must be truly stated. Fictions in pleading have been abolished. The distinction between legal and equitable actions is as fundamental as that between actions ex contractu and ex delicto, and no legislative fiat can wipe it out.

The most marked distinction between actions at law and suits in equity consists in their different modes of relief. In law, with a few isolated exceptions, relief is invariably administered, and can only be administered, in the form of a pecuniary compensation in damages for the injury received; while in equity, the court has a discretionary power to adapt the relief to the circumstances of the case. Actions at law are tried by a jury; suits in equity by the court. The testimony in equity cases is taken in like manner as in cases at law. In actions at law costs are allowed, while in equity suits, they rest in the discretion of the court.

The rule "Whatever ought to have been done will be considered as having been done," is wholly the creature of equity, it being founded upon the principle that, as a court of equity would have compelled performance of the duty, it will put the parties interested, as far as possible, in the same position as if it had been performed. Hence the doctrine of equitable conversion, and other doctrines of a kindred nature.1 1 Langdell, Summary of Equity Pleading, 2d Edition, 27-42.

A decree in equity against the validity of a claim is never a defence to an action at law upon the same claim.

A defendant having had an opportunity of trying the action, and having failed to do so, it must be considered as if it had been tried and decided against him.

The principles of equity jurisdiction are not merely remedial, but preventive of injustice.

[Syllabus of selected decisions.]

It is only through the decisions of Marshall, Story and other eminent jurists that the rules of equity are clearly enunciated, explained and firmly established. Therefore when such findings covering all classes of controversy are freed of collateral matters until only the pith and point of them remain, as in the syllabus following, they indicate the method of procedure as well as of practice:

The relief prayed must be the common and ordinary equity dispensed by the court.

Answering submits to jurisdiction.

If a plain defect of jurisdiction appears at the hearing, a court of equity will no more make a decree than where a plain want of equity appears.

Where the necessary parties are before a court of equity, it is immaterial that the res of the controversy, whether it be real or personal property, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal. It has power to compel a defendant to do all things necessary, according to the lex loci rei sitae, which he could do voluntarily, to give full effect to the decree against him.

Without regard to the situation of the subject-matter, such courts consider the equities between the parties, and decree in personam according to those equities, and enforce obedience to their decrees by process in personam.

A court of equity can restrain the party being within the limits of its jurisdiction from doing anything abroad, whether the thing forbidden be a conveyance or other act in pais, or the instituting or prosecution of an action in a foreign court. After relief has been given in a suit by a court of equity,

a criminal court may be applied to, and the punishment of defendants for conspiracy to injure the plaintiff as to partnership property may be obtained.

If the party applying is free from blame and promptly applies for relief, and shows that by a threatened wrong his property would be so injured that an action for damages would be no adequate redress, a court of equity will grant an injunction.

There is but one case upon record in which any court of equity, either in this country or in England, has attempted, by injunction or order of the court, to prohibit or restrain the publication of a libel, as such, in anticipation.

For the protection of infants a court of equity will stop the publication of a libel.

The utmost extent to which a court of equity has ever gone in restraining any publication by injunction, has been upon the principle of protecting the rights of property.

The publication of a letter calculated to prejudice the plaintiff, and render it difficult for him to obtain justice if justice were on his side was restrained as contempt of court in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.

The writer of letters, though written without any purpose of publication or profit, or any idea of literary property, possesses such a right of property in them that they can never be published without his consent, unless the purposes of justice, civil or criminal, require their publication. Every letter is, in the general and proper sense of the term, a literary composition. It is that, and nothing else; and it is so, however defective it may be in sense, grammar, or orthography. Every writing, in which words are so arranged as to convey the thoughts of the writer to the mind of a reader is a literary composition; and the definition applies just as certainly to a trivial letter, as to an elaborate treatise, or a finished poem. Literary compositions differ widely in their merits and value, but not at all in the facts from which they derive their common name. The right of property is the same in all, and in all is entitled to the same protection.