CHAPTER XV. PROCEDURE OF FEDERAL COURTS WHEN SITTING AS COURTS OF EQUITY. 416. General Equitable Procedure. The procedure on the equity side of the Federal Courts requires separate consideration. Originally equity had no jurisdiction in any case where a plain, adequate and complete remedy might be had at law. Such is still the rule in the Federal Courts. 417. Whether a Plaintiff Has a Remedy at Law Depends on Whether He Had Such Remedy in 1789.-Whether a plaintiff has such remedy at law depends not upon the state of the law at the time the suit is brought, but upon what it was when the Constitution drew the line of demarcation between legal and equitable jurisdiction. In many, perhaps in most, of the States, legislation has now provided legal remedies for many wrongs which formerly could have been redressed in Courts of equity alone. For example, the laws of Louisiana provide that, in a proceeding at law, a creditor may subject his debtor's property to the lien of his judgment, although before it was recovered the debtor, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, conveyed such property to someone else. The existence of such a statute in no wise limits the equitable jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. In 1789 there existed no adequate and complete remedy at law, and the jurisdiction of equity to set aside such deeds and subject the property to the lien of the plaintiff's judgment was then thoroughly established. 418. Federal Courts of Equity May Enforce New Equitable Remedies for Equitable Rights.-The bounds of the equity jurisdiction of the United States Courts being 1 fixed by the Constitution, can neither be extended nor restricted by State legislation. As has been stated, Federal Courts can, however, avail themselves of any new equitable remedy for the enforcement of a right which is equitable in its nature. Jurisdiction over proceedings to quiet title and to prevent litigation is inherent in equity. The Courts have imposed limitations upon its exercise by declaring that to maintain a bill to quiet title it is necessary that the plaintiff be in possesion and, in most cases, that his title shall have been established by law or founded on undisputed or long-continued possession. It is competent for the legislative power to remove such limitation. A statute of Nebraska provided that an action might be brought and prosecuted to final decree by any person claiming title to real estate, whether in actual possession or not, against any person who claimed an adverse estate or interest therein for the purpose of determining such estate and interest and quieting the title to such real estate. It was held, the lands being wild and unoccupied and neither party in possession, that a bill to quiet title could be sustained in the Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska.2 When, however, the defendant is in possession and the plaintiff claims a good legal title, the latter has a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law and no State statute will entitle him to proceed on the equity side of the Federal Courts.3 419. Federal Equity Procedure Uniform Throughout the Country.-While under the Conformity statute the pleading and practice of the Federal Courts on their law side are necessarily as varied as that of the States, precisely the opposite is true as to the conduct of their chancery business. Federal equity procedure and practice are uniform throughout the country. 420. Equity Rules of Supreme Court Regulate Federal Equity Procedure.-Under the provisions of sec'Mississippi Mills vs. Cohn, 150 U. S. 202. tions 913 and 917 of the Revised Statutes, the procedure in equity in the Federal Courts is, in larger part, regulated by the equity rules prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court. Such rules were adopted in 1842. They remained in force for seventy years. During that time amendments and additions were made to them, but their general scheme remained substantially unaltered. On February 1, 1913, an entirely new set went into force. They made radical changes in equity pleading and practice. 421. The New Equity Rules. They are published in full in Volume 198 of the Federal Reporter. They are intended to promote the prompt decision of causes and to insure, so far as possible, that they shall be decided in accordance with the substantial rights of the parties and not upon mere technicalities. 422. Technical Forms of Equity Pleading Abolished. To this end the 18th rule declares "unless otherwise prescribed by statute or these rules, the technical forms of pleading in equity are abolished." 423. The Bill.-A bill in equity should set forth the full name of every party when known, his citizenship and residence. If any party be under disability, that fact should be stated. The bill should contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the jurisdiction of the Court depends, and of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff seeks relief. It is expressly directed that any mere statements of evidence shall be omitted. If from the bill it appears that there are proper parties to the litigation not made parties to the cause, the bill should explain why; as, for example, that they are without the jurisdiction of the Court or that they cannot be made parties without ousting its jurisdiction. If any special relief pending the suit or on final hearing is wanted, the bill must state it and ask for it. Relief may be sought in the alternative. Wherever special relief pending the suit is desired, as, for example, a preliminary injunction, the bill should be verified by oath of the plaintiff or by someone having knowledge of the facts upon which such relief is asked.1 One of the objects of the Supreme Court was to get rid of unnecessary prolixity in equity pleading. It is the duty of the Courts to give effect to this purpose by requiring counsel to omit unnecessary allegations and to cut out all useless verbiage no matter how greatly it may have the sanction of centuries behind it. 424. Joinder of Separate Causes of Action.—If there is only a single plaintiff and a single defendant, the plaintiff may unite all his causes of action cognizable in equity in one bill. Where there is more than one plaintiff the causes of action joined must be joint. If there is more than one defendant the liability must be one asserted against all the material defendants or sufficient grounds must appear for uniting the causes of action in order to promote the convenient administration of justice. To further convenience, justice and dispatch, the Court is empowered to order separate trials of the various causes of action alleged if, in its judgment, all of them cannot conveniently be disposed of together.1 425. Process.-By the 12th Rule the clerk is required, upon the filing of a bill of complaint, to issue a subpoena for the defendant. It is returnable within twenty days from its issue. 426. Time in Which to Answer. The defendant must file his answer or defense on or before the twentieth day after the subpoena is served on him,' unless for cause the judge extends the time for so doing. In counting these days, the day of service is excluded.2 If he fails to answer in time the bill may be taken as confessed. These provisions greatly change the former practice. Under the old rules, all process was returnable to a particular return day; now it is returnable within twenty days of its issue. What is more important, the defendant no longer has so many days in which to enter his appearance and then so many 1 Rule 25. 1 Rule 26. 1 Rule 16. 2 Rule 12. additional days to answer. He is required to file his answer within twenty days after the subpoena has been served upon him. 427. Pleas and Demurrers in Equity Are Abolished. -Pleas and demurrers in equity are abolished. If upon reading a bill filed against your client you are of opinion that upon the face of it you have a defense in point of law, whether it be for misjoinder of parties, non-joinder of an indispensable party, or insufficient allegations of fact to constitute a valid cause of action in equity, you may make a motion to dismiss the bill or you may set up your defense in your answer. Whether you do one or the other that portion of your defense may, at the discretion of the Court, be called. up and dispose of before final hearing. Every defense formerly presentable by plea in bar or abatement should be made in the answer, and in the discretion of the Court may be separately heard and disposed of before the trial of the principal case.1 428. Must Answer Within Five Days After Denial of Motion to Dismiss.-If, representing the defendant, you move to dismiss the bill or any part thereof, your motion may be set down for hearing by either party on five days' notice. If it is denied your answer must be filed within five days thereafter or a decree pro confesso will be entered.1 429. The Answer.-The rules require the defendant, in his answer, to set forth, in short and simple terms, his defense to each claim asserted by the bill. He is to omit mere statements of evidence. He is to avoid any general denial of the averments of the bill. He must specifically admit or deny or explain the facts upon which the plaintiff relies. If he is without knowledge of them, he must say so; and the effect will be the same as if he had denied them. Averments, other than of value or amount of damage, if not denied, shall be deemed confessed except as against an infant, 1 Rule 29. 1 Rule 29. |