Henry Olson, age 15, of Greenville, Miss., for his question:

IN LAW, WHAT EXACTLY IS EQUITY?

Equity, in law, is a set of rules that was originally developed to overcome inflexibility in court decisions. Equity is based on broad principles or reasons and justice. It allows the law to adjust to special circumstances of cases.

The term "equity" comes from the Latin word "aequus," which means "fair" or "just."

Equity developed as a part of English law, as did many other legal concepts used in the United States and Canada. In the early days of English law, however, the laws were often applied so strictly that they created many injustices.

People asked the king to step in and promote fairness, or equity, in many cases. The king and his chancellor judged these cases by principles of justice, rather than strictly by the laws.

In the olden days, the chancellor appointed judges to enforce his equity powers. He also created courts where these judges presided. These courts were called courts of equity or courts of chancery in contrast to regular courts of law.

Courts of law only judged acts after damage was done. Courts of equity had the additional power to order a wrongdoer to stop a harmful act or to perform an act necessary to avoid harm. An order prohibiting an act is called an injunction.

Courts of equity were originally separate from courts of law. Courts of law used juries but courts of equity did not.

Today, the two systems have been merged in most states of the U.S. where the two systems existed. Both bodies of law are administered by one court and the combined rules are simply called law.

For example, law courts use their powers of equity when issuing injunctions to stop unlawful conduct.

In the U.S., some states still have separate courts of equity. Some states call a court of equity a court of chancery.

Here's an example of equity in the courts. A person may borrow money giving a mortgage on property as security. He promises to repay the loan by a certain date. He also agrees that if the loan is not repaid by that date, he will forfeit the property he has mortgaged.

He could be held to this agreement by the strict letter of the law. But a court of equity might find that the man had to give up property of much greater value than the money he owed.

Using the rules of equity, the court could order that the mortgaged property be sold. The debt could be paid from the proceeds and the rest of the amount realized returned to the man. This is a fairer solution than a strict application of the law would bring.