Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/875

 86^ FEDERAL REPORTBR. �freedom from parental and filial ties and duties which thelaw ordinarily bestows at the age of majority.' An examination of the numerous cases cited in this opinion shows that in no case has a complete. emancipation been inferred from the mere acquiescence of the pareiit in the child's contracting for and receiving his own earnings, nor in any case where the child had never left the parental home, and was employed in the sanie place and business as the father. �"Emanicipation being the exception, and not the rule, the burden is upon those who assert it. Sumner v. Sehec, 3 Me. 223. The master has already reported, that he found no evidence of any intention on the part of the father to surren- der ail right to the control ci his son, and the authorities cited by the respondent do not satisfy him that there is a legal inference of such emancipation arising from the cir- cumstances. * * ♦ The master is, therefore, of opinion that Elm er H. Grey is still within the authority and under the control of the respondent. What, then, was the respond- ent's duty in the premises ? 'An order for an injunction or interim restraining order must be implicitly observed,and every diligence must be exercised to obey it to the letter.' Kerr on Injunctions, 569. �"ît has been held that it is a violation of an injunction for the defendant to be present at the commision of the act en- joined, aiding and abetting, although not actually taking part in it, (St. John's College v. Carter, 8 Law Jour. Eq. N. S. 218 ;) or, under some cireumstances, to stand by and quietly suffer the injunction to be violated, (Stimpson v. Putnam, 41 Vt. 238, 246; Blood v. Martin, 21 Geo. 127;) or to neglect to countermand a writ of execution after proceedings have been enjoined, (Woodley v. Bodington, 9 8imp. 214;) or to do the act enjoined as agent or servant for another person, (Potter V. Muller, 1 Bond, 601; Sickles v. Borden, 4Blatch. G. G. 14;) or to work for wages in a factory, the product of which is the prohibited article, (Goodyear v. Mullee, 5 Blatch. G. G. 429 ;) and defendant is liable to attaohment for the acts of his serv- ant, although done without hisknowledge, (Rantzen v. KothS' child, 14 W. E. 96.) ����