A legal fiction is consistent with equity.
Fictio juris (legal fiction) is defined to be a legal assumption that a thing is true which is either not true or which is as probably false as true. And the rule on this subject is that the court will not endure that a mere form or fiction of law, introduced for the sake of justice, should work a wrong contrary to the real truth and substance of the thing. And these fictions of law, though at first they may startle the student, he will find upon further consideration to be highly beneficial and useful, especially as this maxim is ever invariably observed, that no fiction shall extend to work an injury, its proper operation being to remedy a mischief, or remedy an inconvenience, that might result in the general rule of law. So true it is that in fictione juris semper subsistit evquitas.”
The maxim is a Latin term which means with legal fictions, equity always exists. A legal fiction must not be permitted against the legal rights of a third party. According to a commentator of Roman Law, In Fictione Legis Aequitas Existit, is defined to be a legal assumption that a thing is true which either not true, or which is as probably as false as true. The rule on this subject being, that the Court will not endure that a mere form or fiction of law, introduced for the sake of justice, should work a wrong contrary to the real truth or substance of the thing.
If a man disseises me, and during the disseisin cuts down the tree or grass or the corn growing upon the land, and afterwards I re-enter, I shall have an action of trespass against him vi et armis, for after my regress the law as to dissessor and his servants supposes the freehold always to have continued in me.
In the case of Cage v. Acton, it was observed that the law does not love that rights should be destroyed, but, on the contrary, for the supporting of them invents notions and fictions.
In the case of Low v. Little, it was held that the maxim in fictione juris semper subsistit evquitas is often applied by our courts for the attainment of substantial justice, and to prevent the failure of rights.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Broom, Herbert, A Selection of Legal Maxims Classified and Illustrated, 10th Ed., (London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited, 1939)
 William Blackstone
 Cage v. Acton, 1 Lord Raym. 516, 517
 Low v. Little, 17 Johnson, R. (U.S.) 348.