RULES AND MAXIMS - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

RULES AND MAXIMSAuthored

The Law Mind • 857 words

Definition

Rules and maxims are foundational principles that guide judicial reasoning and the administration of legal doctrine, particularly in equity. They are not statutory commands or binding precedents in the strict sense, but rather distilled expressions of recurring legal logic — generalizations drawn from centuries of decided cases, legal writing, and jurisprudential tradition.

In equity practice, rules and maxims occupy a structural role: they articulate the internal logic of equitable jurisdiction and set the boundaries within which equitable relief operates. Classic equitable maxims include formulations such as "equity follows the law," "equity regards as done that which ought to be done," and "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands." These are not merely rhetorical flourishes; courts invoke them to resolve gaps in doctrine and to justify or limit equitable discretion.

More broadly, legal maxims are compressed propositions of law — often expressed in Latin — that carry interpretive weight across common law subjects including property, contracts, procedure, and evidence. Rules, in this usage, refers to principles of general application derived from the body of case law and legal tradition rather than from specific legislative enactment.

Common Confusion

The word "rules" carries multiple distinct meanings in law, and conflating them produces real research errors. Procedural rules (as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) are codified, binding, and enacted through formal rulemaking. Rules in the sense of "rules and maxims" are doctrinal generalizations — they guide rather than command, and they yield when specific authority controls. Researchers encountering a historical source that speaks of "rules" in equity should not assume the term refers to enacted procedural rules.

Why It Matters in Research

The phrase "rules and maxims" appears most heavily in equity treatises and commentaries from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Bouvier's treatment is characteristic of that era: it organizes equitable jurisdiction through a series of maxims that function as structural load-bearing principles for the whole system. Researchers working in pre-twentieth-century equity materials will encounter these maxims operating as near-precedential shorthand — courts often cite a maxim where a modern court would cite a case.

Two research traps stand out. First, the maxims themselves are not uniform across sources. Different treatises articulate them differently, assign them different weight, and sometimes treat a single underlying principle as two separate maxims or collapse two distinct principles into one. Cross-referencing across Bouvier, Story's Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, and Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence is essential before treating any historical maxim formulation as authoritative.

Second, the relationship between equity and law has changed. Bouvier's first maxim — that equity does not lose jurisdiction merely because law courts later provide similar relief — addressed a jurisdictional question that was live and contested in the dual-court system. After the merger of law and equity under the Federal Rules and their state equivalents, this jurisdictional logic transformed. Modern courts still cite equitable maxims, but they do so in a procedurally unified context. A maxim that once had jurisdictional force may now function only as a discretionary guide.

Researchers should also note that "rules and maxims" sometimes appears as a distinct section heading in older treatises, encyclopedias, and digests, organizing content that might today be scattered under doctrinal subheadings. Searching for this phrase as a structural term — not just a substantive one — can help locate relevant material in historical sources.

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's Law Dictionary treats rules and maxims in the context of equity administration, opening with two foundational propositions. The first holds that equity jurisdiction, once established because law provided no remedy or an inadequate one, is not defeated simply because law courts later develop comparable relief. This reflects the historical anxiety about equitable jurisdiction being eroded by legal expansion — a practical concern when the chancery and common law courts operated in genuine competition.

The second maxim Bouvier identifies — equity follows the law — is perhaps the most cited of all equitable principles. It encapsulates the proposition that equity, while capable of supplementing or correcting the strict application of legal rules, does not operate in defiance of established law. Equity works within the legal framework, not above it.

What Bouvier's entry does not fully capture — and what later treatise writers like Pomeroy and Story elaborate more systematically — is the internal tension between maxims. Equity follows the law, yet equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. These competing maxims require judicial judgment to reconcile, and historical sources vary in how they navigate that tension. Researchers relying solely on a dictionary statement of a maxim risk missing the doctrinal complexity that case law and treatise commentary supply.

Jurisdictional Note

Equitable maxims retain practical force in jurisdictions that preserved a formal equity tradition or where courts continue to exercise equity jurisdiction as a distinct matter. In merged jurisdictions, maxims function primarily as interpretive guides and discretionary factors rather than jurisdictional rules. State courts vary considerably in how explicitly they invoke maxim-based reasoning.

RULES AND MAXIMSmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

In the administra- tion of the jurisdiction, there are certain rules and maxims which are of special sig nificance. First, Equity having once had jurisdic- tion of a subject-matter because there is no remedy at law, or because the remedy is inadequate, does not lose the jurisdiction merely because the courts of law after- wards give the same or a similar relief. Second, Equity follows the law. This is true as a general maxim. Equity follows the law, except in relation to those matters which give a title to equitable relief be- cause the rules of law would operate to sanction fraud or injustice in the particular case. Third, Between equal equities, the law must prevail. The ground upon which the suitor comes into the court of equity is that he is entitled to relief there. But if his ad- versary has an equally equitable case, the complainant has no title to relief. Fourth, Equality is equity: applied to cases of contribution, apportionment of moneys due among those liable or benefited by the payment, abatement of claims on account of deficiency of the means of pay- ment, etc. Fifth, He who seeks equity must do equity. A party cannot claim the interposition of the court for relief unless he will do what it is equitable should be done by him as a condition precedent to that relief. Sixth, Equity considers that as done which ought to have been done. A maxim of much more limited application than might at first be supposed from the broad terms in which it is expressed. In favor of parties who would have had a benefit from something contracted to be done, and who have an equitable right to have the case considered as if it had been done, equity applies this maxim. Illustration: when there is an agreement for a sale of land, and the vendor dies, the land may be treated as money, and the proceeds of the sale, when completed, go to the distributees of personal estate, instead of to the heir. If the vendee die before the completion of the purchase, the purchase-money may be treated as land for the benefit of the heir. REMEDIAL PROCESS, AND DEFENCE. A suit in equity is ordinarily instituted by a complaint, or petition, called a bill; and the defendant is served with a writ of sum- mons, requiring him to appear and answer, called a subpœna. In Pennsylvania the suit is begun by filing and serving a copy of the bill, the subpæna having been dispensed with by a rule of court. The forms of proceedings in equity are such as to bring the rights of all persons interested before the court; and, as a general rule, all persons interested should be made parties to the bill, either as plain- tiffs or defendants. There may be amendments of the bill; or a supplemental bill,-which is some- times necessary when the case is beyond the stage for amendment. In case the suit fails by the death of the party, there is a bill of revivor, and after the cause is disposed of there may be a bill of review. The defence is made by demurrer, plea, or answer. If the defendant has no inter- est, he may disclaim. Discovery may be obtained from the plaintiff, and further matter may be introduced, by means of a cross-bill, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, in order that it may be consid- ered at the same time. Issue is joined by the plaintiff's filing a replication to the de fendant's answer; Sto. Eq. Pl. § 878 n. The U. S. Equity rule 66 requires a replication to be filed on or before the next rule day; failing which the bill may be dismissed. In some states, as Delaware, the replication is entered as of course without filing; and special replications are now as a rule not used. The final process is directed by the decree, which being a special judgment can pro- vide relief according to the nature of the case. This is sometimes by a perpetual in- junction. There may be a bill to execute, or to im- peach, a decree.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In