864 FEDERAL REPORTER, �manufacturing or selling the articles ineluded in the injunc- tion, but his son, acting as agent for Mr. Ladd, continued to oarry on their manufacture and sale. Eespondent advised his son not to do this, but on learning from his son that the latter intended to disregard this adviee, he made no remon- strance and no attempt to interfere by the exercise of his parental authority. Two questions arose bef ore the master : First. Whether respondent was the real head of the Philadel- phia branch and the alleged agency of his son merely a fraud- ulent device to evade the injunction. On this question the master found in favor of respondent. Second. Whether the respondent was answerable for the acts of his son. On this question the master found that the son was still within his father's control ; that while there was an emancipation so far as to vest in the son the property in his wages already earned, and the right to receive future wages, at least until some act of revocation on the part of the father; yet thàt the evidence did not show an intention on the part of the father to wholly emancipate the son from parental control. �As to the law applicable to these facts the master found as foUows : �"How far a father is responsible or answerable for the torts of his minor child is a question not entirely settled. The tendenoy of the authorities is against holding the father re- eponsible for acts of his minor children done without his knowledge or authority, and out of his presence, and to throw the burden of proof in such cases upon the party seeking to charge the father. Moon v. Towers, 8 G. B. N. S. 611; Tifft V. Tifft, 4 Denio, 175; Edwards v. Crime, 13 Kan. 348; Wil- son V. Garrard, 59 111. 51; Paulin v. Howser, 63 111. 312; Chandler v. Deaton, 37 Tex. 406 ; Baker v. Haldeman, 24 Mo. 219. When, however, the act is committed in the presence of the father, or the circumstances show that it was done with his knowledge and by his authority, either express or implied, he is liable. Thua, in Strohl v. Levan, 39 Pa. St. 177, a father was held liable in trespass for an injury committed by the son while driving his father's team, the father being present in the wagon at the time. It is true that in this case ����
