Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.
108 A. 349, 265 Pa. 128, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 512
Opinion
Our established practice on an appeal from the award or refusal of a preliminary injunction is to decline to consider the merits of the case, and, when it appears that there was apparently sufficient ground for the action of the court below, the status quo will not be disturbed, but will be continued to final hearing: Gemmell et al. v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146; Hoffman v. Howell, 242 Pa. 112; Bixler v. Swartz, 257 Pa. 300. TMs appeal comes within the rule, and it is, therefore, dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co., 108 A. 349, 265 Pa. 128, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 512 (Pa. 1919).
108 A. 349 (Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Scowden v. Thomas
94 Pa. Super. 35 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Howard v. Goodnough
141 A. 483 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.
116 A. 676 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Stefanich v. Beaver Falls
77 Pa. Super. 125 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1921)