Arizona republican., 1897-10-12
mining properties described in tht complaint herein.
SEVENTEENTH.

mining properties described in the complaint herein.
 SEVENTEENTH
 That these plaintiffs and all of the other stockholders except said War her and those associated with him in the mana cement of said company, were ignorant of all these facts and circumstances, and had no notice or knowledge in regard thereto, until some time prior to the commencement of this suit; and that at meeting then held at which there was a large number of the stockholders present, these plaintiffs were authorized and directed to bring this suit on behalf of themselves and all others ill like es- tate.
 That said defendant Griffin, receiv CT as aforesaid, was there present, and demand was made upon him to institute this action, which demand was refused.
 MEMORANDA or DECISION.
 The foregoing facts, it seems to me- are the salient facts in this contro- versy; certainly all the facts that are necessary to find for the purpose of any decree that can be entered at this time.
 A vast amount of testimony has been introduced, much of which is more or less contradictory in it's na- ture, and a great deal having only an incidental, if any, bearing on the case. The arguments of counsel have like wise taken wide range, yet, in my view of the case, the facts entitled to controlling weight and consideration, as we'll as the principles of law appli- cable, are comparatively few.
 From the evidence offered, it is claimed by the plaintiffs on the nne hand, that they are entitled to de- cree of this court that Law1er and Wells have no right, title or inter est in this property, or any claims thereto, which they are entitled to assert against these plaintiffs.
 Plaintiffs also claim that Lawler and Wells should account to and pay over to the corporation for the use of plaintiffs, or the, plaintiffs them selves, all moneys received by Lawler and Wells, both the amounts paid from the receipt of the sale of stock in said Seven Stars company, as well as all sums received by them from ore and bullion during the time said company was in possession, and work ing and operating these properties, claiming that said defendants, by their acts, of omission, and com mission, by their words and by their silence when they should have spo- ken, that they have estopped them selves, not only from asserting any right, or title to these properties, but that by their said acts and words and silence, they participated in this fraud to such an extent and in such a manner that they can be called to ac- count for all benefits received there under.
 The defendants, on the other hand, deny this, in their answer, and in their cross-bill assert and claim that neither the plaintiffs nor any one on their behalf, have any right, title or interest in said properties, or any thereof which they can assert against these defendants, or, if any, only the right to make the payments required under the Cowland agreement as mod flied by the various supplemental agreements attached to their cross bill, or, in other words, they claim and assert that plaintiffs have no oth- CT or greater rights and are not en- | titled to any more consideration than 1 Cowland or Warner or the Industrial company, either one or all of them, were he or they, or it, here seeking the relief from this court prayed for | in the bill.
 To neither of these claims nor as- sertions can give my assent.
 It is fundamental principle oi equity jurisprudence that 'the that comes into court of equity, seeking equitable relief, must do equity. This doctrine is as old as courts l of chancery themselves, and is the foundation upon which the great edi- flee of equity jurisprudence has been constructed. The word equity had its origin and was derived from 8 word whose various meanings were synonomous with what was right and fair and just, as between man and man. Rules of equity are but the enunciation of that great principle ot ethics which is the underlying prin- ciple of all right and justice un. to others as you would they should do unto you"
 The claims of either side. if sus tained, it seems to me, violate these principles. Weighed in the balance by themselves and they incline the scales to the opposite extremes o what are the real equities of this case. If the court should by its de cree, declare that Lawler and Wells have no rights whatever to this prop erty, and that plaintiffs are entitled to take the same and all thereof, fret and clear of any and all rights or in terests which Lawler and Wells have therein, and in addition thereto, com pei them to return all moneys re ceived by them thereon, it would b' equally, if not, more, harsh, dnequit able and unjust than to decree tha these plaintiffs must raise and pa! over to these defendants this vas sum of money within any reasonabl, time that the court might order, or b, forever barred of all rights therein and thereto.
 The one seeks equitable relief in al