Jurisdiction of Equity in Fraud Cases
![handle is hein.journals/upitt18 and id is 161 raw text is: NOTES
JURISDICTION OF EQUITY IN FRAUD CASES
In a case where fraud is alleged, does a court of equity have jurisdiction
even though there is a full, complete and adequate remedy at law? It is
a basic principle of equity jurisprudence that a court of equity will afford
relief only in the absence of an adequate remedy at law.' The aim of this
note is to determine whether an exception to this rule exists in cases of
fraud. Special emphasis is given to the position of Pennsylvania and an
attempt is made to reconcile what, on its face, appears to be two contra-
dictory lines of authority on this question.
THE ENGLISH DOCTRINE
The extent of the jurisdiction of the English courts of chancery in cases
of fraud was well stated by Justice Gray of the United States Supreme
Court in the case of Buzzard v. Houston.2
In England, indeed, the court of chancery, in cases of fraud, has
sometimes maintained bills in equity to recover the same damages which
might be recovered in an action for money had and received. But the
reason for this as clearly brought out by Lords Justices Knight Bruce
and Turner in Slim v. Croucher, 1 D., F and J. 518, 527, 528, was that
such cases were within the ancient and original jurisdiction in chancery
before any court of law had acquired jurisdiction of them, and that the
assumption of jurisdiction by the courts of law, by gradually extending
their powers, did not displace the earlier jurisdiction of the court of
chancery.
The only question presented to an English court, in cases of fraud, is whether
equitable jurisdiction should be exercised. Its existence is never disputed.3
Ordinarily, where the relief sought was merely pecuniary compensation
and there was an adequate remedy at law, even the English court of Chancery
refused to exercise its jurisdiction. The true conclusion would appear to
be that equity would have the power to entertain a bill in such cases, but
that it is not according to the usual course and practice of chancery to do
so.''4 The English Doctrine then, because of the late birth of the action
of assumpsit and other appropriate legal actions was that chancery had
jurisdiction over all cases of fraud regardless of the existence of an adequate
remedy at law. Whether the court of chancery would choose to exercise
its jurisdiction was entirely a different matter.
At least nine American jurisdictions are considered to be committed to
1. 1 POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE § 220 (5th ed. 1941); WALSH, EQUITY § 25 (1930).
2. 119 U.S. 347, 352 (1886).
3. 3 POMEROY, EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE § 912 (5th ed. 1941).
4. BISPHAM, PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY § 200 (10th ed. 1924).
1956]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/upitt18&div=14&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Jurisdiction of Equity in Fraud Cases
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most