Definition
A court of equity is a court that exercises jurisdiction according to the principles, rules, and precedents of equity rather than the common law. Such a court administers justice by applying equitable doctrines — conscience, fairness, and the prevention of unjust enrichment — and historically followed the forms and procedures of the English Court of Chancery. Its remedies are characteristically non-monetary: injunctions, specific performance, constructive trusts, rescission, and accountings are its native tools. It acts upon the person (in personam) rather than directly upon property or legal rights, compelling parties by decree backed by the court's contempt power.
The term stands in direct contrast to a court of law, which applies common law rules, proceeds by writ and jury, and awards money damages as its primary remedy. The distinction was foundational to the English dual-court system inherited by American colonial practice and carried forward — with significant variation — into the early republic.
---
Common Confusion
COURT OF EQUITY vs. COURT OF CHANCERY: The two terms are closely related but not perfectly synonymous. "Court of Chancery" refers to a specific institutional court — originally the English Lord Chancellor's court, later replicated in certain American states. "Court of equity" is the broader functional description: any court exercising equitable jurisdiction qualifies, including courts of chancery, but also equity divisions of unified courts, and in some periods, probate or ecclesiastical courts exercising equitable powers. A court of chancery is always a court of equity; a court of equity is not always a court of chancery in the institutional sense.
COURT OF EQUITY vs. EQUITY JURISDICTION: Modern courts in merged systems often retain equity jurisdiction without being courts of equity in the historical sense. A researcher must distinguish between a dedicated equity tribunal and a general court exercising equitable powers in a particular case.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The most significant research trap with this term is the merger problem. Most American jurisdictions merged their courts of law and equity during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure completing that merger at the federal level in 1938. After merger, the label "court of equity" ceases to describe a separate institution and survives only as a descriptor of a court acting in its equitable capacity. Sources predating merger in any given jurisdiction will treat courts of equity as distinct institutions with separate procedural rules, dockets, and appeal paths. Sources postdating merger use the term analytically, not institutionally.
Timing of merger varies dramatically by jurisdiction. Delaware's Court of Chancery — a genuine, freestanding court of equity — was never merged and remains active today. New Jersey maintained separation well into the twentieth century. Researchers working with state court records must establish the merger date for the specific jurisdiction before interpreting references to equitable proceedings or equity court structure.
The record-keeping status of courts of equity matters for historical research. Bouvier notes that courts of equity are not, strictly speaking, courts of record except when made so by statute. This affects the evidentiary weight given to their decrees in subsequent proceedings and the availability of enrolled records for historical research.
For remedies research, the line between courts of equity and courts of law maps directly onto the adequacy test: equity jurisdiction was traditionally available only when the remedy at law was inadequate. Understanding what a court of equity could and could not do — and the procedural mechanisms required to invoke that jurisdiction — is essential for tracing the historical development of equitable remedies. The adequacy test's logic is inseparable from the institutional separation of the courts.
Equity's in personam operation (its decrees bind the person, not title directly) also has practical consequences in historical property research. A court of equity could compel a party to execute a conveyance; it could not itself transfer title. The constructive trust and the equitable mortgage operate through personal obligation, not direct legal operation. This distinction affects how equity court decrees appear in title chains and deed records.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The source dictionaries converge on the functional definition: a court of equity administers justice according to equitable principles and follows chancery procedure, as distinguished from common-law courts. Black's (both editions) and Bouvier track closely on this core definition. Burrill defers to the entries for Equity and Chancery rather than providing an independent treatment — useful confirmation that the term was understood as derivative of those foundational concepts rather than independently defined.
Bouvier adds two points worth preserving. First, the reminder that courts of equity are not courts of record except by statute — a detail Black's omits. Second, the emphasis that equity decrees touch the person only, though they are conclusive between the parties. This in personam/conclusiveness pairing is doctrinally important and underrepresented in Black's formulation.
The Wiktionary definition introduces a common modern misconception by stating that courts of equity cannot award monetary damages. This is an overstatement. Historical courts of equity could award monetary relief in certain circumstances — most notably through the remedy of account, and later through the equitable doctrine allowing damages in lieu of injunction. The clean line between money damages (law) and non-monetary relief (equity) is a pedagogical simplification, not a strict historical rule. Researchers relying on that clean line in historical sources will encounter anomalies.
None of the historical dictionaries adequately address post-merger practice, the survival of equity jurisdiction in unified courts, or the Delaware anomaly. For those purposes, the dictionaries must be supplemented with jurisdiction-specific procedural history.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Delaware maintains a functioning Court of Chancery with general equitable jurisdiction, making it the most significant surviving example of a dedicated court of equity in the United States and a primary reason Delaware corporate litigation is so heavily developed in equity doctrine. Most other American jurisdictions completed law-equity merger between the mid-nineteenth century and 1938, but the timing and completeness of merger varies. Researchers working in pre-merger state practice must consult the procedural history of the specific jurisdiction.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Remedies at Law vs. Remedies in Equity — The Adequacy Test and the Merger of Law and Equity (The Law Mind Remedies & Equity Encyclopedia)
Mortgages — Equity of Redemption and Statutory Redemption (The Law Mind Property Law Encyclopedia)
---