r .DUNKfl .». GMT, ^69 �"The master is of the opinion that, under the principles laid down by these authorities, the respotidept çQuld not quietly acquiesce in the sale of the prohibited articles by hia minor son 'in tlae course of a business in whieh he was him- self employed and from which he drew his salary; but that he was boand to have exercised his parental authority to prevent the violation of the injunction, and is liable to attach- ment for failure to do so. It may be that if he can after- wards show to the court that he has made the attempt tô exercise such authority; that he has exhausted every means of compelling obedience, and that he is unable to prevent the violation of the injunction, he may be relieved from further liability ; but up to this time he has mode no such attempt to exercise his authority, even to the extent of remonstrance, and therein, in the master's opinion, he has failed to obey the decree of the court. For these reasons the master ia of opinion that the attachment should be issued." �Both parties filed exceptions to this report — the complain- ants upon the ground that the testimony showed actual fraud, and the respondents upon the ground that the testimony showed an emancipation of Elmer H. Grey, and that the lat- ter's actions did not rënder his father liable to attachment» �Thomas J. Qrier and George W. Dyer, for complainaut, �John E. Shaw, for respondent. �BuTLEE, D. J. The court is of opinion that the exceptions should be dismissed and the master's report confirmed, but will not issue the attachment if the respondent will obtain from his son, and file in court, an agreement to refrain from hereafter mauufacturing or selling the articles which infringa complainant's patents. �Subsequently such an agreement was executed by the son, with the consent of the Boston principal, Mr. Ladd, and was filed by respondent. The court ordered that respondent pay the master's fee, the other costs to abide the final resuit of the cause. ����
