€84 
E Q U 
poling of or affefHng his property ; not even in cafes 
where lie is a royal truftee. Such caufes nmll be deter, 
ruined in the court of exchequer, as a court of revenue ; 
which alone has power over the king’s treafure, and the 
officers employed in its management, unlefs where it pro. 
perly belongs to the duchy court of Lancafter. 
Equity is to be conficlered as affiftunt to the jurifdidfion 
of the courts of law ; iff. By removing legal impediments 
to the fair decilion of a qaeftion depending in courts of 
law. 2aly. By compelling a difeovery which may enable 
them to decide. 3d 1 y. By perpetuating teftimony, when 
in danger of being loft, before the matter to which it re¬ 
lates can be made the fubjedt of judicial inveftigation. It 
may alfo be faid to be afliftant, by rendering the judg¬ 
ments of courts of law effective, as by providing for the 
fafety of property in difpute pending a litigation ; by 
counteracting fraudulent judgments ; and by putting a 
bound to vexatious and oppreffive litigation. It exercifes 
a concurrent jurildiction with courts of law, in moft cafes 
of fraud, accident, miftake, account, partition, and dower. 
It claims an exclufive jurifdiCtion in all matters of truft 
and confidence; and wherever, upon the principles of 
univerfal juftice, the interference of a court of judicature 
is neceffary to prevent a wrong, and the pofiiive law is 
lilent. See Mitford’s Treatil'e on the Pleadings in Chan¬ 
cery. This jurifdidtion may, in the greater number of 
cafes in which it is exercifed, be juftified by the propriety of 
preventing a multiplicity of fuits; for, as the mode of pro¬ 
ceeding in courts of law requires the plaintiff to eftablifh 
his cafe, without enabling him to draw the neceffary evi¬ 
dence from the examination of the defendant, juftice 
could never be attained at law in thofe cafes where the 
principal fadls to be proved by one party are confined to 
the knowledge of the other party. In fuch cafes, there¬ 
fore, it becomes neceffary for the party, in want of fuch 
evidence, to refort to the extraordinary powers of a court 
of equity, which will compel the neceffary difeovery ; and 
the court, having acquired cognizance of the fuit for the 
purpofe of difeovery, will entertain it for tire purpofe of 
relief, in moft cafes of fraud, account, accident, and mif¬ 
take ; and for oilier reafons will entertain fuits for parti¬ 
tion and dower, though difeovery be not neceffary to the 
plaintiff’s cafe. 
The cafe (and, it feems, the only cafe) in which fraud 
cannot be relieved- againft in equity, concurrently with 
courts of law, though difeovery be fought, is the cafe 
of fraud, in obtaining a will ; which, fince the cafe of 
Kerrick v. Branfby, 3 Brown’s Pari. Caf. 358, is conftant- 
ly referred to a court of law in the fhape of an ifllie, de- 
rifavit vel non. That courts of equity have a concurrence 
of jurifdidtion with courts of law, in all other matters of 
fraud; fee White v. Huffey, Pre. Ch. 14. Hungerford v. 
Earle, 2 Vern. 261. Colt v. Woollafton, 2 Pr. Wins. 156. 
Stent v. Baillis, 2 P. IVms. 220. 2 Comyns's Digcjl , titles 
Chancery and Fraud. 
Tire jurifdidtion exercifed by our courts of equity, in 
moft cafes of accident , prefents a very (h iking inftance of 
their anxiety to prevent innovation on the jurifdidtion of 
courts of law : their interference being generally founded 
on fome circumftance, which prevents the party being 
rclievable at law ; as where a bond or other inftrtiinent or 
fecurity, is left, equity will interfere, by compelling a 
difeovery from the defendant, and will relieve upon fuch 
difeovery ; but the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, 
upon a mere (uggeftion that the bond, inftrument, or fe¬ 
curity, is loft ; but is required, for the purpofe of relief, 
to annex to his bill, an affidavit to fuch effect. Mitford’s 
Treatife 112. And, as a further fecurity againft innovation, 
it nuift appear that the lofs of the deed or inftrument 
obftrudts the plaintiff' in feeking relief at law; for the 
lofs of a deed is not always a ground to come into a court 
of equity for relief ; if there was no more in the cafe, al¬ 
though he is entitled to have a difeovery of that, whether 
left or not, courts of law admit evidence of the lofs of a 
1 T Y. 
deed, proving the exiftence of it and its contents, juft ass 
court of equity does. There are two grounds to come 
into equity for relief, annexing an affidavit to the bill. 
Firft, where the deed is deftroyed or concealed by the de¬ 
fendant ; and whenever that is the cafe, the plaintiff is in- 
titled to have relief in this court, upon the reafon in lord 
Hunfdon’s cafe. Hob. 109. Another is, whers the plain¬ 
tiff cannot recover at law, without making profert of the 
deed in pleading at law. Whitfield v. Fail (let, 1 Fez. 392. 
But where the relief fought in equity is upon the lofs of 
a bill of exchange, or promiftory note, the plaintiff muff, 
by his bill, offer to give fecurity, as an indemnity to the 
defendant, againft any demand being made upon him in 
refpedt of fuch loft bill or note. Walmfley v. Child, x 
Fez. 341. 
The jurifdidtion of our courts of equity, in matters of 
dower, for the purpofe of aflifting >the widow with a dif¬ 
eovery of the lands or title deeds, or of removing impe¬ 
diments to her rendering her legal title available at law, 
has never been doubted. But it has been queftioned, 
whether equity could give relief in thofe cafes, in which 
there appeared to be no obftacle to her legal remedy. 
Wallis v. Everard, t,CIi. R. 87. It feems now, however, 
to be fettled, that the widow labours under fo many dis¬ 
advantages at law, from the embarraffments of truft terms, 
&c. that (he is fully entitled to every affiftance that a 
court of equity can give her, not only in paving the way 
for her to eftablifh her right at law, but alfo by giving 
complete relief when the right is afeertained. Curtis v. 
Curtis, 2 Bro. C. R. 634. And in the exercife of this juris¬ 
diction, courts of equity will even enforce a difeovery 
againft a ptirchafer for valuable confideration without 
notice. Williams v. Lambe. 3 Bro. Ch. Rep. 264. And 
though the widow ftiould die before fhe had eftablilhed 
her right to dower, equity will, in favour of her perfonal 
reprefentative.s, decree an account of the rents and profits 
of the lands, of which (lie afterwards appeared dowable-. 
The effential difference (fays Blackftone) between law 
and equity principally confifts in the different modes of 
adminiftering juftice in each; in the mode of proof j the 
mode of trial, and the mode of relief. Upon thefe, and 
upon two other accidental grounds of jurifdidtion, viz. 
the true conftruCtion of fecurities for money lent and the 
form and effedt of a truft or Second life, hath been princi¬ 
pally eredied that ftrudture of jurifprudence, which pre¬ 
vails in our courts of equity, and is inwardly bottomed 
upon the fame fubftantial foundations as the fyftemof the 
courts of common-law. As to the mode of proof. When 
facts, or their leading circumftances, reft only in the 
knowledge of the party, a court of equity applies itfelf to 
his confcience, and purges him upon oath witli regard to 
the truth of the tranfadtion ; and, that being once difeo- 
vered, the judgment is the fame in equity as it would 
have been at law. But, for want of this difeovery at law, 
the courtsof equity have acquired a concurrent jurifdic- 
tion with every other court in all matters of account. 1 
Chan. C. 57. As incident to accounts, they take a concur¬ 
rent cognizance of the adminiftration of perfonal aftets. 
2 P. Wins. 143 ; confequently of debts, legacies, the diftri. 
bution of the refidue, and the condudt of executors and 
administrators. As incident to accounts, they alSo take 
the concurrent jurifdidtion of tithes, and all queftions re¬ 
lating thereto ; of all dealings in partnerfnip ; and other 
mercantile tranfadtions ; and fo of bailiffs, receivers, fac¬ 
tors, agents, &c. 
The mode of trial, is by interrogatories adminiftered 
to the witneffes, upon which their depofitions are taken 
in writing, wherever they happen to refide. If therefore 
the caufe arifes in a foreign country, and the witneffes. 
refide upon the fpot; if in caufes arifing in England, the 
witneftes are abroad, or fhortly to leave the kingdom ; 
or if the witneffes refiding at home are aged or infirm ; 
any of thefe cafes lays a ground for a court of equity 
to grant a commifiion to examine them, and (in confe- 
.5 quence) 
