Hamilton v. Diamond Drill & Machine Co.
This text of 137 F. 417 (Hamilton v. Diamond Drill & Machine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
137 F. 417, 69 C.C.A. 532, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 4555, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-diamond-drill-machine-co-ca3-1905.