"It cannot be assumed that equity was following common law whenever they agreed, any more than the converse"

Frederick Pollock's observation, "It can not be presumed that equity was following common law whenever they concurred, anymore than the reverse", looks into the detailed relationship between equity and common law within the legal system. To completely appreciate this declaration, it's crucial to understand the historical context and functions of both.

Common law represents a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents developed by the courts, identified by its rigid structure and adherence to established rules. It is understood for its predictability and consistency, which are attained through precedent. Equity, on the other hand, became a response to the often inflexible nature of typical law. It represents a set of legal principles that aim to accomplish fairness and justice, often intervening in cases where typical law might lead to an unjust outcome.

Pollock's quote suggests that one need to not automatically think that when the results of common law and equity correspond, it is due to equity following typical law concepts. There are circumstances where both can reach the exact same conclusion individually since fair principles often complement typical law. However, this must not suggest a hierarchical relationship in which equity simply trails typical law. Just as equity can line up with typical law by coincidence or shared principles, typical law can likewise, independently of equity, produce comparable outcomes.

The important takeaway is the independent yet occasionally synergistic nature of these two legal frameworks. They were created to fulfill different roles within the legal system, with common law supplying a durable structure of rules and equity making sure fairness where the law may be doing not have. This balance enables the judiciary to deliver justice while keeping order and consistency. Pollock's reflection emphasizes the independent and in some cases complementary paths of these doctrines, underscoring that their contracts are not always acquired of one another. This distinction is important in understanding the characteristics of legal interpretations and the application of justice in a nuanced and holistic manner.