DUNKS ». GBET. 863 �rule the matter was, by agreement of counsel, refehred to a master, who found the foUowing facts : �The respondent, Truman N. Grey, bad been, in 1876, the general agent in PhUadelphia of H. W. Ladd, a spring-bed manufacturer of Boston, Mass., who had a branch store in Philadelphia. In that year respondent took into his employ his minor son, E. H. Grey, then about le yeara of age. In 1877 the business of the braneh house declined, and in order to revive it respondent began to make trips and sell goods throughout the adjacent territory, leaving his son, by direction of Mr. Ladd, in charge of the Philadelphia store. As these trips proved auccessful, they were gradually increased in number and duration, until they occupied a large portion of respondent's time. Meanwhile the son had developed a talent for business, and had, with the consent of his father, gradually assumed the general management of the business of the Philadelphia branch, conducting the correspondence, fixing priees, planning his father's trips, etc., until in 1880, although only 18 years of age, he was performing all the duties of general manager, while his father acted only as traveling salesman. The son's salary had been from time to time increased by Mr. Ladd, until, in 1879, it was raised above that of his father. No written agreement, and no express verbal agreement, was ever made between the father and son, or between either of them and Mr. Ladd, in refer- ence to the cbaracter or duration of the son's employment, but all three parties had, for at least a year and a half before this suit, acted as though the son were the general manager, and the father only traveling salesman. The son was un- married and lived at home with his father, but was allowed to receive and spend his own salary, and paid board to his father. �The complainant, after bringing suit in Philadelphia against Mr. Ladd, and failing to obtain service therein, brought suit against respondent and obtained a preliminary injunction restraining him from selling articles infringing complainant's patents. After service of this injunction, respondent, in his employment as traveling salesman, refrained from personally ����
