It was simply an example of the court being prepared, once it had pierced the veil, to grant an equitable remedy against the controller of the puppet company. It provides no authority for the proposition that a piercing of the veil enables the court to go to die lengths of finding that the puppeteer must, as a consequence of such piercing, be regarded as a party to a contract he had procured between the puppet company and a third party. No such question arose in it.