qualification, that where eq- uities are equal, the legal title prevails. Equality, here does not mean or refer to priority in point of time, as is shown by the cases on tacking. Equality means the non-existence of any circumstance which affects the conduct of one of the rival claimants, and makes it less meritorious than that of the other. Equitable owners who are upon equality in this respect may struggle for the legal estate, and he who obtains it, having both law and equity on his side, is in a better situation than he who has equity only. This doctrine is not confined to tacking mortgages. It also applies in favour of all purchasers of equitable interests for value without notice of prior equitable interests, who get in the legal es- tate. It does not however apply to an equitable owner who gets in the legal estate from a trustee who conveys the legal estate in breach of trust. See, Taylor v. London and County Bank Com- pany (supra). 3. Mere Equities: The distinction between a mere equity and an equitable in- terest is tenuous, hence the difficulty in ascertaining whether a right in property is an equita- ble interest or a mere equity. Yet the distinction cannot be avoided because of the attendant con- sequences. An equitable interest is an established interest in property while a mere equity is a property right inferior to an equitable See Phillips v. Phillips (1862) 4 De O.F. & J. 208: Latec Investments Ltd. v. Hotel Terrigal Property Ltd. (1965) 113 C.L.R. 265. A mere equity is binding on a purchaser only if such mere equity is ancillary to or dependent upon the equitable interest acquired by the purchaser in the property. See National Provincial Bank Ltd. v. Ainsworth (1965) A.C. 1175. A purchaser of an equitable interest in land need not obtain