Generally in all matters in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law, with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail.
History: Laws 1897, ch. 73, § 178; C.L. 1897, § 2685 (178); Code 1915, § 4259; C.S. 1929, § 105-1006; 1941 Comp., § 19-304; 1953 Comp., § 21-3-4.
ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law.
Express contract. — An express contract is to be enforced as written in regard to contractual obligations of the parties unless the court has determined that equity should override the express contract because of fraud, real hardship, oppression, mistake, unconscionable results, and the other grounds of righteousness, justice and morality. Arena Res., Inc. v. OBO, Inc., 2010-NMCA-061, 148 N.M. 483, 238 P.3d 357.
Judgment granting equitable relief in action based on express contract. — Where plaintiff, who was the operating-interest owner, redeveloped an oilfield unit and sought reimbursement from defendant, who was a working-interest owner; plaintiff unilaterally redeveloped the unit without obtaining the consent of defendant as was required by the operating agreement of the parties; the redevelopment project increased oil and gas production, enhanced the unit, and netted favorable revenue consequences for defendant; although the district court concluded that plaintiff had breached the operating agreement, the court granted judgment for plaintiff based on unjust enrichment; plaintiff's action was for breach of contract and to enforce a contractual lien; plaintiff never asserted a claim for unjust enrichment, the case was not tried on the theory of unjust enrichment, and plaintiff did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law on unjust enrichment; and the court never mentioned the existence of any evidence or entered any findings of fact that supported its conclusion of unjust enrichment or otherwise provided any basis for invoking the unjust enrichment theory in the face of the parties' express contract, the court was not permitted to exercise its equitable powers to grant plaintiff relief under the equitable unjust enrichment theory of recovery. Arena Res., Inc. v. OBO, Inc., 2010-NMCA-061, 148 N.M. 483, 238 P.3d 357.
Enforcement of contract unenforceable under statute of frauds. — Even where a contract relating to the transfer of real estate is verbally changed as to the time of payment, a court of equity will intervene and order performance, when the refusal to intervene on account of the statute of frauds would permit a fraud to be committed. Kingston v. Walters, 1908-NMSC-007, 14 N.M. 368, 93 P. 700, aff'd, 1911-NMSC-009, 16 N.M. 59, 113 P. 594.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 15A Am. Jur. 2d Common Law § 15.
15A C.J.S. Common Law § 9.