tion against being blacklisted by the employers in his locality and trade. Cornellier v. Haverhill Shoe Mfs' Asso. L.R.A. 1916C, 218, 221 Mass. 554, 109 N. E. 643. q. Equity will not aid the manufacturer of a secret medicine, the sale of which has been built up by fraudulent representations, to the public as to its ingredients, to enforce a contract with an institution purporting to administer such remedies, by requiring a cancelation of the contract and a surrender of the remedies on hand because of breach of the contract, on the theory that failure to do so will enable defendant to impose on the public by claiming the right to administer the remedies. Memphis Keeley Institute v. Leslie E. Keeley Co. 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 921, 155 Fed. 964, 84 C. C. A. 112.

r. A publishing house of considerable reputation, which has agreed with another that an encyclopedia should be represented to the public as the work of the first house, in order that both may avail themselves of its reputation to attract subscribers for the book, cannot, upon the subsequent termination of the agreement, enjoin the use of its name by the other publishing house in the manner agreed upon, but may enjoin the use of its name in any other manner. Munn & Co. v. Americana Co. L.R.A.1916D, 116, 83 N. J. Eq. 309, 91 Atl. 87.

s. Equity will afford relief to the innocent party to an illegal contract. Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Dismukes, 17 L.R.A. 113, 94 Ala. 131, 10 So. 289.

t. Employees working for compensation based on a percentage of sales, who are discharged because of the attempted organization of a rival business, are not prevented from seeking an accounting in equity for money already earned, on the theory that they do not come with clean hands. Ely v. King-Richardson Co. L.R.A.1915B, 1052, 265 Ill. 148, 106 N. E. 619. (Annotated) u. A former member of an illegal combination, whose connection with it was severed before the filing of the suit, will not be denied the protection of a court of equity against an illegal act of such combination because of his previous connection therewith. Employing Printers' Club v. Dr. Blosser Co. 69 L.R.A. 90, 122 Ga. 509, 50 S. E. 353.

§ 104. - effect of wrongdoing in other matters.

Refusal to grant relief_against infringement of patent, see PATENTS, § 28 c. a. The maxim that he who seeks aid of a court of equity must come into court with clean hands only applies to the particular transaction under consideration, as the court will not go outside the case for the purpose of examining the conduct of the complainant in other matters. Yale Gas Stove Co. v. Wilcox, 25 L.R.A. 90, 64 Conn. 101, 29 Atl. 303; Chicago v. Union Stockyards & Transit Co. 35 L.R.A. 281, 164 III. 224, 45 N. E. 430; Brown & Allen v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. 57 L.R.A. 547, 115 Ga. 429, 41 S. E. 553; Trice v. Comstock, 61

L.R.A. 176, 121 Fed. 620, 57 C. C. A. 646; Fuller v. Berger, 65 L.R.A. 381, 120 Fed. 274, 56 C. C. A. 588, certiorari denied in 193 U. S. 668, 48 L. ed. 839, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 852; Shaver v. Heller & M. Co. 65 L.R.A. 878, 108 Fed. 821, 48 C. C A. 48; Employing Printers' Club v. Dr. Blosser Co. 69 L.R.A. 90, 112 Ga. 509, 50 S. E. 353; Peters v. Case, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 408, 62 W. Va. 33, 57 S. E. 733; Lyman v. Lyman, L.R.A.1916E, 643, 90 Conn. 399, 97 Atl. 312.

b. Equity will not go outside of the subject matter of a controversy and make its interference depend upon the character and conduct of the moving party in no way affecting the relief which he demands. Rice v. Rockfeller, 17 L.R.A. 237, 134 N. Y. 174, 31 N. E. 907.

c. If a party can make out a case without disclosing his fraud, he may have relief in equity, if entitled to it upon the grounds alleged and proved. Monahan v. Monahan, 70 L.R.A. 935, 77 Vt. 133, 59 Atl. 169.

d. The disqualification resulting in an equitable suit from the fact that the complainant does not come into court with clean hands applies only to the particular matter or transaction with which the wrongful conduct has to do, and the complainant may have relief in other respects. Munn & Co. v. Americana Co. L.R.A.1916D, 116, 83 N. J. Eq. 309, 91 Atl. 87.

e. The rule that equity will not refuse aid to one who comes before it with unclean hands, when the uncleanness does not relate to the thing sought to be protected, has no application to a suit by the manufacturer of a secret medicine, the sale of which has been built up by fraudulent representations, to enforce a contract with an institution as to the use of the remedies, and to prevent the institution from using them in violation of plaintiff's rights. Memphis Keeley Institute v. Leslie E. Keeley Co. 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 921, 155 Fed. 964, 84 ̊C. C. A. 112.

§ 107. in trademark cases.

a. Equity will not lend its aid against the infringers of a trademark which contains a material false representation, adapted to deceive purchasers of the article sold with it, or which is made the basis of material false representations in carrying on that business in which it is used. Nel son v. J. H. Winchell & Co. 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1150, 203 Mass. 75, 89 N. E. 180.

b. The exclusive use of a trademark which contains a false representation calculated to deceive the public as to the manufacture of the article and the place where it is manufactured will not be protected by courts of equity. Joseph v. Macowsky, 19 L.R.A. 53, 96 Cal. 518, 31 Pac. 914.

C.

(Annotated) Material misrepresentations in the use of a trademark or label will defeat the right of the owner to relief in equity against an infringement or imitation by others. Prince Mfg. Co. v. Prince's Metallic Paint Co. 17 L.R.A. 129, 135 N. Y. 24, 31 N. E. 990. (Annotated) | d. The fact that an article sold by the owner under a trademark which misrepresents it is as good as that described by the trademark does not relieve him from the effect of his misrepresentation to defeat his rights to relief in equity against infringements or imitation of his trademark by others. Prince Mfg. Co. v. Prince's Metallic Paint Co. 17 L.R.A. 129, 135 N. Y. 24, 31 N. E. 990. (Annotated) e. An implied representation by the use on a label of the words "Prince's Metallic Paint," that the product was from the Prince mine, has the same effect on the owner's standing in equity, if this representation is untrue, as if it was printed in express words on the face of the label. Prince Mfg. Co. v. Prince's Metallic Paint Co. 17 L.R.A. 129, 135 N. Y. 24, 31 N. E. 990. (Annotated) f. The fraudulent use of the term "Syrup of Figs" as the name of a laxative preparation into which only a slight quantity of fig juice is put, not for the purpose of changing its medicinal character or even its flavor, but merely to give a weak support to the statement that the article is

syrup of figs,-will not be protected in equity against imitation. California Fig Syrup Co. v. Frederick Stearns & Co. 33 L.R.A. 56, 73 Fed. 812, 20 C. C. A. 22.

g. The use as a trade name by a milk dealer, of the name of a well-known ranch, cannot be protected in equity, where the milk which he sells is not from that ranch, even if it is of a superior quality. Millbrae Co. v. Taylor, 25 L.R.A. 193, 4 Cal. Unrep. 714, 37 Pac. 235.

h. Equity will not protect a labor union in the use of a nontrademark label which it distributes to all its members to be placed upon their work, the object of which is to descriminate between union and nonunion labor, and to coerce the latter into joining the union, by recommending to the public the goods on which such labels appear because made by union labor, and denouncing rat-shop, coolie, prison, or filthy tenementall other goods as the product of "inferior, house workmanship." McVey v. Brendel, 13 L.R.A. 377, 144 Pa. 235, 22 Atl. 912. § 108. Doing or offering equity. Restitution, see post, § 110. As basis of doctrine of equitable election, see EQUITABLE ELECTION, § 1 a. Requiring party seeking to have deed declared a mortgage to forego statutory penalties for exaction of usury, see MORTGAGE, § 9 r.

In

suit to have sale under power in mortgage set aside, see MORTGAGE, § 99 a. See also PLEADING, §§ 264 f, 265 b, 549 b.

a. One who appeals to the court for the exercise of its equitable powers in his behalf, must himself do equity. Taylor Mfg. Co. v. Hatcher, 3 L.R.A. 587, 39 Fed. 440; Wheeler v. Abilene Nat. Bank Bldg. Co. 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 892, 159 Fed. 391, 89 C. C. A. 477.

b. The rule that he who seeks equity must do equity requires that one asking aid of a court of equity must stand in conscientious relations towards his adversary; that the transaction from which his claim arises must be fair and just, and that the relief itself must not be harsh and oppressive upon the defendant. Marks v. Gates, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 137, 154 Fed. 481, 83 C. C. A. 321.

c. Where parties seek in a court of equity to divest others of the legal title to land, the court may impose equitable terms on which relief will be granted. Galbraith v. Tracy, 28 L.R.A. 129, 153 Ill. 54, 38 N. E. 937.

d. The maxim that "he who seeks equity must do equity" has no application to heirs, in an action brought against them to establish a right under a timber lease executed by their father upon land to which they assert a legal title derived from him by prior gift or conveyance, so as to require them to tender back that part of the purchase money paid to the father and received by them from his executor. Garbutt v. Mayo, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 58, 128 Ga. 269, 57 S. E. 495.

e. In an action against heirs to establish

f. The plaintiff in a suit in equity to determine conflicting claims to the right to use or divert the waters of a stream by virtue of riparian rights, appropriation, prescription, or otherwise, and enjoin in fringement, under color thereof, of rights acquired under the Nebraska irrigation act of 1895, may offer to do equity by compensating riparian owners whose rights are affected by the construction and operation of an irrigation canal, and in such case the amounts due the several parties by way of damages may become a proper subject of inquiry and adjudication therein. Crawford v. Hall, 60 L.R.A. 889, 67 Neb. 325, 93 N. W. 781.

g. Equity will not enforce a lien for pur: chase money reserved on land in a deed of general warranty, when a part of the land had been before sold by the grantor to other persons whose right is superior to that of the grantee, without abatement from the purchase money of the value of the land so lost to the grantee. Smith v. Ward, 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1030, 66 W. Va. 190, 66 S. E. 234.

h. A person who has secured a loan from a corporation doing business within a state with the laws of which it has failed to comply so as to entitle it to do business there in, and who has failed to pay same, as provided by his contract, cannot admit the contract and the indebtedness, and at the same time, prosecute an action to cancel the mortgage given to secure the indebtedness, solely on the ground that the corporation failed to comply with the statute in qualifying to do business. Tarr v. Western Loan & Sav. Co. 21 L.R.A. (N.S.) 707, 15 Idaho, 741, 99 Pac. 1049. (Annotated)

i. Where a tenant in possession took a tax deed of the land, and conveyed to another, maintaining, however, his proper relation to the landlord, and an action of ejectment, to which the landlord was not a party, was brought against his grantees by one who had obtained a quitclaim deed from the landlord's grantor, in which the tax deed was set aside and the tax title purchaser given a lien for taxes, which the ejectment claimant was required to satisfy, which he did, and then conveyed another, although he never obtained possession of the land, and the tax title purchaser then procured a conveyance from the landlord owner, and brought an action to quiet title against the grantee of the ejectment claimant, the latter should be regarded as the equitable assignee of the lien for taxes, and equitable relief to the plaintiff should be

j. A consignee will not receive the aid of equity to compel the delivery to it of freight by a carrier, which is refused because of the consignee's refusal to comply with reasonable regulations for the prompt return of cars. Kentucky Wagon Mfg. Co. v. Ohio & M. R. Co. 36 L.R.A. 850, 98 Ky. 152, 32 S. W. 595.

§ 109.- where statute of limitations has run against other party. See also CLOUD ON TITLE, § 16 f, g; MORTGAGE, § 29 n.

which the rules and principles of equity a. A court of equity may, in a case in demand it, condition the grant of relief sought from it by a complainant with the the defendant, which, by reason by the Statenforcement of a claim or equity held by ute of Limitations or a former judgment, the latter could not enforce affirmatively or chine Co. v. Brown, L.R.A.1917F, 1100, 119 in any other way. United Cigarette Ma

Va. 813, 89 S. E. 850.

b. Before one who has conveyed land abthe aid of equity to defeat an action by the solutely as security for a loan can secure the debt has become barred by the statute of grantee for possession of the property after limitations, he will be required to recogSturdivant v. Reece, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 825, nize the debt as an existing lien on the land. 83 Ark. 278, 103 S. W. 732. (Annotated) c. Equity may enforce the lien of a corporation upon stock and dividends of one seeking its aid to compel payment of his breach of contract with the corporation dividends for damages for instigating a for which could not be enforced at law bewhich can be readily ascertained, the claim cause of the expiration of the limitation United Cigarette Machine Co. v. period. Brown, L.R.A.1917F, 1100, 119 Va. 813, 89 (Annotated)

S. E. 850.