TAYLOR v. SESQUI-CENT. EX. ASSN., 290 Pa. 153 (1927)

138 A. 754

Taylor et al., Appellants, v. Sesqui-Centennial Exhibition Association.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.November 23, 1926.
June 25, 1927.

Appeals — Moot question — Sunday law.

On an appeal from a decree refusing to grant a preliminary injunction to close an exhibition on Sunday, the question involved is moot where it appears that the exhibition was scheduled to be

Page 154

closed one week after the case was argued in the appellate court, and that the idea of reopening the exhibition, which had then been suggested, had been definitely abandoned.

Argued November 23, 1926.

Before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 313, Jan. T., 1926, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., June T., 1926, No. 10204, refusing preliminary injunction, in case of Thomas D. Taylor et al. v. The Sesqui-Centennial Exhibition Association. Appeal dismissed.

Bill for injunction. Before FINLETTER, J., specially presiding under the rules of court governing summer business.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Prayer for preliminary injunction refused. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting record.

Albert Smith Faught, with him Isaac C. Sutton, for appellant.

Joseph P. Gaffney, with him Francis Shunk Brown, for appellee.

PER CURIAM, June 25, 1927:

In this case, a class bill was filed by four taxpayers, for themselves and others who might see fit to join in the proceedings, asking that an injunction issue restraining the Sesqui-Centennial Exhibition Association, a Pennsylvania corporation, from maintaining and operating its exposition in Philadelphia on Sundays. When the case was argued before this court, on November 23, 1926, the exposition was scheduled to close on December 1, 1926, but there was talk of reopening it for the summer

Page 155

of 1927, an idea which has since been definitely abandoned. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that all the questions involved are moot.

It may be noted, however, that the latest construction of the Act of April 22, 1794, 3 Sm. L. 177, which, by section 1, regulates the observance of “the Lord’s Day, commonly known as Sunday,” will be found in Commonwealth v. American Baseball Club, opinion filed simultaneously herewith [the preceding case].

The appeal is dismissed.