Charles E. Hires Co. v. Hires

37 A. 1117, 182 Pa. 346, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 816
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 15, 1897·No. Appeal, No. 205·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from the interlocutory decree of April 27,1897, continuing the preliminary in junction theretofore granted against George A. Hires, one of the defendants, and awarding a like injunction against the other defendants and each of them, etc., until the further order of court.

A careful consideration of the record, in connection with the specifications, etc., has not convinced us that there is any error in the decree of which the defendants, or either of them, have any just reason to complain. We are all of opinion that the cause should be permitted to proceed in the court below to final hearing and decree, and, in view of that, discussion of the questions now presented is neither necessary nor desirable.

The appeal is dismissed at appellants’ costs, but without prejudice, etc.

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

Charles E. Hires Co. v. Hires, 37 A. 1117, 182 Pa. 346, 1897 Pa. LEXIS 816 (Pa. 1897).

37 A. 1117 (Charles E. Hires Co. v. Hires) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Poloskey v. Pantano
25 Pa. D. & C.2d 307 (Cambria County Court of Common Pleas, 1961)
Gamlen Chemical Co. v. Gamlen
79 F. Supp. 622 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1948)
Heller v. Miller
33 Pa. D. & C. 257 (Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1938)
Kendrick v. Quaker City Coat & Apron Supply & Laundry Co.
8 Pa. D. & C. 439 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1926)
Schmick v. West Reading Broom Works
79 Pa. Super. 331 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)
Potter v. Osgood
79 Pa. Super. 397 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)