92 
Indiana University Studies 
in the fifteenth century it decreed specific performance of 
an agreement before the common law courts would recognize 
an agreement . 26 It also assumed jurisdiction over mortgages, 
guardianship of infants, property rights of married women, 
fraud, accident, and mistake. Equity took from the Ecclesi- 
astical Courts much jurisdiction which the common law courts 
by writs of prohibition would not allow them to exercise. Be- 
fore the creation of the Court of Star Chamber equity exer- 
cised some criminal jurisdiction. 
Equitable Remedies. The principal remedies which equity 
discovered in this period were specific performance, which 
came into frequent use in the sixteenth century to enforce 
performance of a promise where justice seemed to demand it; 
injunction, which was first used in tort cases to restrain acts 
of waste (Elizabeth’s time ), 27 and which before the end of 
the Yorkist line was used to restrain a litigant from pre- 
ceding with his action in a common law court; discovery, 
whereby a defendant was compelled to testify in writing on 
oath as to facts known only by him or as to what documents 
he had, upon interrogatories filed in a bill in chancery, so that 
the answers could be used in a common law court (at a 
time when the defendant could not be compelled to testify) ; 
and account, which largely supplanted the common law ac- 
tion of account. 
Equitable Procedure. The procedure in chancery was en- 
tirely different from that at common law. All proceedings 
were in English. No writ was required, because the chancellor 
exercised the prerogative of the king to grant relief as a 
matter of grace. The proceedings were commenced by a peti- 
tion, afterwards called a bill. This was the first pleading. 
If it disclosed a case, a subpoena was issued to the defendant 
to appear and answer on oath. This answer soon was in 
writing. Hence the pleadings were written. They did not 
produce an issue. No jury was used. The evidence was taken 
in the form of written affidavits. This procedure was taken 
by the chancellors from the Ecclesiastical Courts. 
For interlocutory work the chancellor had the assistance 
of a body of clerks. Chief of these was the master of the 
rolls, whose primary duty was to take care of documents and 
26 Cokayn v. Hurst, in “Select Cases in Chancery”, 10 Selden Soc., No. 142. 
27 Anonymous, Moore 554, pi. 748. 
