Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.
This text of 108 A. 349 (Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
108 A. 349, 265 Pa. 128, 1919 Pa. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beetem-v-carlisle-light-heat-power-co-pa-1919.