GOLDEN v. MARKSON COAL CO., 351 Pa. 493 (1945)

41 A.2d 660

Golden, Appellant, v. Markson Coal Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.January 8, 1945.
March 19, 1945.

Appeals — Order dissolving preliminary injunction — Scope of appeal — Discretion of court below.

1. An appeal lies from an order dissolving a preliminary injunction. [494]

2. In the absence of basic error of law, the appellate court will not pass on the merits of the case which must subsequently be developed and will not reverse the action of the chancellor if he had reasonable grounds for making the order complained of. [494]

Argued January 8, 1945.

Before MAXEY, C. J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.

Appeal, No. 299, Jan. T., 1944, from decree of C. P., Schuylkill Co., Sept. T., 1944, in Equity, No. 1, in case of Harry L. Golden v. Markson Coal Company. Decree affirmed.

Bill in equity. Before DALTON, J.

Decree entered dismissing preliminary injunction. Plaintiff appealed.

Roy P. Hicks, with him Cyril C. Kilker, Cletus C. Kilker, an Walter Sidoriak, for appellant.

Ralph M. Bashore, for appellee.

PER CURIAM, March 19, 1945:

This appeal is from an order dissolving a five-day injunction granted pursuant to rule 38 on bill and affidavits without notice to the defendant and subject to a

Page 494

motion to continue the injunction. After hearing evidence on the application to continue the injunction, defendant’s motion to dissolve was granted. We have held that an appeal lies from such an order: Annenberg v. Roberts, 333 Pa. 203, 2 A.2d 612. The general rule is that in the absence of basic error of law, this court will not pass on the merits of the case which must subsequently be developed and will not reverse the action of the chancellor if he had reasonable grounds for making the order complained of: Annenberg v. Roberts, supra. The learned court was right in holding that the relationship which these parties had created and acted under for some months prior to obtaining the injunction should not have been summarily terminated.

Decree affirmed at costs of appellant.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 41 A.2d 660

Recent Posts

COMMONWEALTH v. ALEXANDER, 243 A.3d 177 (2020)

243 A.3d 177 (2020) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Keith ALEXANDER, Appellant. No. 30 EAP…

8 months ago

BODAN v. FICKETT, 24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982)

24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982) Bodan v. Fickett No. 2726 Civil 1981.Common…

2 years ago

IRWIN v. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 1 Pa. 349 (1845)

Irwin v. Bank of the United States, 1 Pa. 349 (1845) Sept. 1845 · Supreme Court of…

5 years ago

DURST v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., 52 A.3d 357 (2012)

52 A.3d 357 (2012) Maureen DURST and Scott Durst, Appellants v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.…

7 years ago

COMMONWEALTH v. SISTRUNK, 460 Pa. 655 (1975)

334 A.2d 280 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Edward SISTRUNK a/k/a Edward Brooks, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of…

9 years ago

McINTYRE ET AL. v. POPE ET AL., 326 Pa. 172 (1937)

191 A. 607 McIntyre et al., Appellants, v. Pope et al.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 25,…

9 years ago