nThe Court of Chancery did not follow the writ system nor
did it utilize
juries—chancellors made factual determinations in addition to fashioning equitable remedies.
nAlthough the Court of Chancery did not follow the common
law or the doctrine of stare decisis,
chancellors eventually came
to rely on “maxims” derived from previous equitable decisions. Perhaps the chief distinction between the
common law and equity was that
common-law courts were limited to awarding
damages to plaintiffs who prevailed in civil actions, while the Court of Chancery could issue an injunction to
prevent or terminate injurious
conduct and order specific performance
in cases of breach of contract.
nEventually, common law and equity would be merged, both
in England and the United
States, at least in the sense that law and equity jurisdiction would be vested in the same