In the above, the manner in which the Chancellor passed the order without ignoring the common law rule of “irrefutable evidence “ shows that “equity follows the law” since the Chancellor would have passed the order in favour of the lender had he found the evidence in his favour. Secondly, the equity acts in person in that the Chancellor did not create any legal or property right. The Chancellors originally had been bishops, archbishops and cardinals and hence, origins of a law of trusts are attributed to Roman and Canon laws.
There are already legal and equitable trusts in trusts law. The tracing of property in equity is possible only if there is a fiduciary relationship. In property law, the equitable doctrine of part performance could be enforced only by an equitable remedy. The legal and equitable interests are always distinguishable unless there is an intervention by a statue. The distinction is demonstrated by the position that the legal interest is rights in rem i.e against the whole world whereas the equitable rights cannot be enforced against the bona fide purchaser of a legal estate for value without notice. Contrary to Pollock’s view, the dichotomy between equity and law has only grown-up ever since. Lord Nicholls has observed in A-G v Blake that the distinction has arisen as “an accident of history”. In general law other than trusts, legal and equitable rights are also distinct. . Substantive Fusion in English Law.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples