862 FEDERAL REPORTER. �instrument, without any deduction whatever. What the cov- enantor agreed was, that the maker never should be obliged to pay any portion of the note ; that he would protect him from the whole amount. Such being the effect of the agree- ment, it is clear that, if the bankrupt's estate pays only part of it, the proper party, having paid the residue, may recover if back of the maker, whose remedy would be against the covenantor in this sealed obligation, ail of which is obvi- ated by holding that the agreement is a full discharge of the maker and the other parties contiûgently liable on the note. For these reasons I am of the opinion that the decision ôf the court below is errronecas, and that the appellants are enti- tled to the relief which they ask. Pecree reversed, with costs. ���DuNKS ». Grey.* (Cirettit Court, M. D. Pennsylvania. Septemlier 14, 1880.) �1, CONTEMPÏ — 1NJ0NCTION — PATENT — LlABIUTT OF PATHIiB FOB ACTS �OF MmoB Son. — A father who had been enjoined from selling cer- tain patented articles, held, under the peculiar circumstanoes of this case, liable to attachment for subsequent salea of such articles by his minor son, who was living with him and was still under his controL �2. Same— Emancipation.— The fact that the father allowed the minor �son to receive and spend his own wages is not of itself such a com- plete emancipation of the son as to relieve the father from liability for the son's acts. �8. Bamk— PracticE— CosTs.— The son having flled an agreement not to sell the patented article, no attachment was issued against the father. The latter was ordered to pay the master's f ee, the other costs to abide the final resuit of the cause. �Eule to show cause why attachment should not issue against respondent for oontempt in not obeying a preliminary injunc- tion restraining him from manufacturing and selling articles infringing complainant's patents. Upon the return of the �«Keported by Frank P. Prichai-d, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ����
