Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 04.djvu/564

CHANCERY. 484 CHANDA. the case. It followed, from the difTerence in the fharaoter of the jurisdiction that was exercised by the two courts, that while the relief aflorded by the court of law was necessarily remedial, the relief aflorded in chanceiy nii};ht be. and fre- quently was, preventive. Tims the court of law had no power to restrain a defendant from <loing an act which mi<;ht injure the plaintirt' in the future. l)ut the Chancellor, by reason of his ]iower o command. mi>;ht issue an injunction directing the defendant to refrain from such an act. Anotlu'r im))ortant eonsequence of the differ- ence in kind of jurisdiction exercised by the two courts was the ability of the Chancellor to deal with a inany-sided controversy. A controversy at law was necessarily two-sided. The law court could only find a verdict and direct a judgment for either the plaintilV or defendant: but. in- asmuch as the Chancellor miL'ht reipiire ol)cdicnco to his decrees on pain of punishment for con- tempt, it was possible for him, in a sinple pro- ceeding, to determine and adjust the rights of numerous parties, not only as between plaintiff and defendant, but as between those who, nom- inally co-defendants, actually had some contro- versy among themselves. As recourse to the Chancellor was originally due to the inability of the litigant to obtain relief at law, it became a fundamental [irinciple of the Court of Chancery that it would lake jurisdiction of the cause only wl-.eii it appeared that there was no adequate remedy at law. Moreover, as the Chancellor was originally an ecclesiastic and the "keeper of the King's conscience." he was said to exercise his jurisdiction on conscientious or equitable prin- ciples, for the purpose of doing justice, without regard to the strict rules of the conunon law. This gave rise to certain basic cqiiitable princi- ■ pies unknown lo (he law. which, however, when once established by precedent, were applied by the court of equity in much the same manner that courts of law applied legal principles. Upon these principles chancery, as do our modern courts of equity, afforded relief in eases of fr.iud (q.v.) and mistake (q.v.). It compelled defendants before it to give discovery (q.v.), ad- ministered trusts, etc., all matters of which courts of law took no cognizance. It also ob- tained an administrative jurisdiction over the affairs of married women, infants, and insane persons, by virtue of the Chancellor representing the King in his administrative ca])acily. Thus there grew up with the conunon law a great legal system which, while consistent with and, indeed, supplementary to it, was largely independent of it. Its office was to mitigate the rigor of the rules of the common law and supi>!y its deficiencies, and this it was able to do be- cause of the manner in which it exercised its jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the coui't of chancery is (a) coordinate, (b) supplementary, and (c) exclusive. •Tvirisdiction is said to be coordinate when the litigant has his election to seek relief at law or in chancerj-. Hence, for breach of contract the plaintiff has the allei-native of recovering dam- ages at law; or, if legal damages are inadequate, securing specific ])erformance of the contract by decree of the chancellor. The jurisdiction of chancery is said to be sup- plemental when, for the purpose of protecting rights recognized and enforced by courts of law, it confers and enforces new equitable rights; thus the right of the mortgagor to redeem mortgaged properly and of the ni<n"tgagee to foreclose in equity, and, in a similar manner, the exercise of its jurisdiction over waste (q.v.), are typical examples of the supplemental jurisdiction of chanceiy. (See MoRTr..GE. ) The jurisdiction of chancery is exclusive when its powers are e.- ertc>d in protecting purely eipiitable rights — that is. risjhts which are recognized in chancery, but of which the law takes mi cognizance. The most notable exam|)le is the jurisdiction exercised in chancery over uses and trusts (q.v.). Before 1S73 the constitution of the Court of Chanceiy in Kngland consisted of the Lord High Chancellor, the ilaster of the Rolls, and three vice-chancellors. In that year an act was passed by which the Court of Chancery became one di- vision of the High Court of .lustiee. retaining enly its equity jurisdiction, its onlinary juris- diction being transferred to other divisions of the court. This forms an important jiart of that 'fusion of law and etpiity' luuler the judicature acts ( 1873-71!) , which has so simplified and maile orderly the practice of English courts. In the United States the terms court of chan- cery and chancery are used in some States as equivalent to courts of equity and equity. The ])rinciplcs and practice of equity were generally transferred to this country as they existed in Kngland ; but in most of the States there are no separate courts of chancery, the same judge sit- ting, according to the nature of the ease, either as a common-law or equity court. A few States, however, instituted' courts of chanceiy under that name; these were Alabama. Delaware. Flor- ida. Mississippi, New Jersey. Tennessee, and Ver- mont. As early as 1848 the State of Xew York not only abolished the distinction between courts of equity and conunon law. but did away with the old forms of jiractice in both. Many of the States have followed this reform. By the United States Constitution Federal courts are especially given jurisdiction in equity as well as in conunon law, and the distinction be- tween procedure at law and equit.y has been maintained, though both .systems are adminis- tered by the same courts. (See Eqiitv; Equity Ple.vdixg; Practice. ) Consult: Kerly, II is- lorical Sketch of the Etjuitablc Jiirisdiclion of the Court nf Chancer}/ (Cambridge. Eng., 1S90) ; Gilbert, Histori/ and Practice nf the Hiph Court of Chancery (l.cmdon, 175S; first American edi- tion, Vashingt(m, 1874) ; Marsh, llistorii of the Court of Chancer;/ and of the Rise and Derclop- ment of the Doctrines of Equity (Toronto, 1890). CHANCES, The. A comedy by .John Fletcher, first printed in the folio edition of I(>47. It was altered by George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, in 108"2; but "the licentiousness of that nobleman's pen rendering the play im- proper for rei)resentation" at later and more refined pcrimls, it was revised a second time by Garrick in 177.J. Its source is Cervantes's novel I.a iSenora Cornelia. A musical drama entitled Don John, or the Two Violettas, produced in 1821, was based on it. CHANDA, chun'da. The capital of a district of the same name, in the ag])ur Division. Cen- tral Provinces. British India (.Map: India. C 4). The town stands on the left bank of the Virai. near its juneticm with the Wardha. !in miles south of the town of Xagpur. Its walls, built of cut