Basch & Strohl v. Schunk

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Basch & Strohl v. Schunk

162 A. 927, 106 Pa. Super. 482, 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 270

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 27, 1932

DocketAppeal 26

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A. 927 (Basch & Strohl v. Schunk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Basch & Strohl v. Schunk, 162 A. 927, 106 Pa. Super. 482, 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 270 (Pa. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjbiam,

Mrs. Basch, one of the plaintiffs, is the owner of premises adjacent to a park in the City of Scranton, which premises she claims abnt on an improved road bordering the park; the other plaintiff is the tenant in possession occupying certain refreshment booths and stands designed to cater to visitors to the park. The city claims that the highway is a part of the park area, and that the plaintiffs have no right of access to it. The city is about to erect a fence along plaintiffs’ premises thus preventing an entry on the road by the plaintiff or her tenant.

The court, upon application made by the plaintiffs, issued a preliminary injunction restraining for the time being the erection of the fence until final determination of the matter. The court states: “The facts present a case of threatened injury which would be irreparable. For this reason, the city’s hand should be stayed until the reciprocal rights of the parties can be settled by trial of the issue.” The action of the court was apparently based on reasonable grounds, and this is the only matter which concerns us now. We refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation, which cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings: Conrad v. Stillman, 96 Pa. Superior Ct. 356, and cases there cited.

The order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Ctjbiam,

Mrs. Basch, one of the plaintiffs, is the owner of premises adjacent to a park in the City of Scranton, which premises she claims abnt on an improved road bordering the park; the other plaintiff is the tenant in possession occupying certain refreshment booths and stands designed to cater to visitors to the park. The city claims that the highway is a part of the park area, and that the plaintiffs have no right of access to it. The city is about to erect a fence along plaintiffs’ premises thus preventing an entry on the road by the plaintiff or her tenant.

The court, upon application made by the plaintiffs, issued a preliminary injunction restraining for the time being the erection of the fence until final determination of the matter. The court states: “The facts present a case of threatened injury which would be irreparable. For this reason, the city’s hand should be stayed until the reciprocal rights of the parties can be settled by trial of the issue.” The action of the court was apparently based on reasonable grounds, and this is the only matter which concerns us now. We refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation, which cannot be determined at this stage of the proceedings: Conrad v. Stillman, 96 Pa. Superior Ct. 356, and cases there cited.

The order is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A. 927, 106 Pa. Super. 482, 1932 Pa. Super. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basch-strohl-v-schunk-pasuperct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack