Case Name: HAMILTON v. DIAMOND DRILL & MACHINE CO.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1905-04-27
Citations: 137 F. 417
Docket Number: No. 32
Parties: HAMILTON v. DIAMOND DRILL & MACHINE CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 137
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
HAMILTON v. DIAMOND DRILL & MACHINE CO.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
April 27, 1905.)
No. 32.
Patents—'Violation of Injunction—Contempt.
Evidence held to sustain a decree adjudging a person guilty of contempt for aiding others who had been enjoined from infringement of a patent in evading the injunction by taking over and conducting the business in his name with actual knowledge of the injunction.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern. District of Pennsylvania.
For opinion showing the facts, see 130 Fed. 893,
Horace Pettit, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. C. Strawbridge, for defendant in error.
Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The ground upon which the Circuit Court adjudged Hamilton, the plaintiff in error, guilty of contempt in violating the injunction decree of the court, was that in the matters in disobedience of the injunction complained of he acted as the agent of the enjoined defendants, or in their behalf. The learned judge below found that Hamilton actually knew of the injunction early in 1903, although he was not served with a copy of the writ until July 16, 1904; that he had been acting throughout in collusion with the enjoined defendants to help them evade the injunction; that, while he may not have been their paid agent, he knowingly did acts by which they profited, and that he gave the defendants his deliberate aid. On behalf of the plaintiff in error it is urged that the findings were not supported by the evidence, but we cannot adopt such view. We think there was evidence to support the court's conclusions, and upon those findings of fact there was no error in adjudging Hamilton guilty of contempt and imposing upon him a fine of $100, with costs.
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.