How have the courts interpreted equitable principles in an action for breach of fiduciary duty?

Plaintiffs cite Mortimer v. Loynes (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 160, 168 P.2d 481 as illustrative of the foregoing principles. The action was one for breach of fiduciary duty and the relief requested was a specific sum of money out of which, it was alleged, plaintiff was defrauded. The conduct of defendants was measured by a standard consisting of equitable principles. (At p. 167, 168 P.2d 481.) The court ruled: "From the fact that equitable principles are thus used to establish the alleged liability of the defendants, it does not [204 Cal.App.3d 864] necessarily follow that the action to enforce that liability is equitable. The law courts now recognize and apply many equitable principles and grant relief based thereon where, as here, legal relief is sought in the form of a judgment for a specific amount. [Citations.] None of the extraordinary powers of a court of equity are required in order to give plaintiff the relief that he seeks. A court of law can afford complete relief. It is thus apparent that this action is one at law. [Citations.]" ( Id., at p. 168, 168 P.2d 481.)