ABSTRACT
By the sixteenth century, the position of Lord Chancellor was no longer given to a religious person but to a lawyer. The court gradually became bound by rules and was far less flexible. Cases were no longer decided according to their particular circumstances and facts. Problems arose in the administration of both the courts and there grew considerable rivalry as to which court was superior. It was also possible to bring an action on the same facts in both courts if the claimant sought different remedies. So if he were seeking damages then he would pursue the case in the common law courts but if he were seeking an injunction then he would pursue his case in the courts of equity. Pursuing two actions in two different courts was costly and time-consuming because of duplication. Imagine that Edmund has promised to supply 50 sheep to Edward on the first Tuesday in March. He fails to do so. Edward wants the sheep and no one else can supply them. He can sue at common law for the breach of contract and claim the value of the sheep and he can also bring an action in equity in the Chancery court for specific performance of the contract. There would be two separate actions and two sets of lawyers.
