Daugherty Typewriter Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Daugherty Typewriter Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Co.

35 A. 1111, 178 Pa. 215, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1156

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 5, 1896

DocketAppeal, No. 100

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 A. 1111 (Daugherty Typewriter Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Manufacturing 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.

Bluebook

Daugherty Typewriter Co. v. Kittanning Iron & Steel Manufacturing Co., 35 A. 1111, 178 Pa. 215, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1156 (Pa. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

In any view that can be reasonably taken of the facts presented to the court below by the bill, affidavits, counter affidavits, etc. in this case, we are all of opinion that there was no error in refusing to grant the preliminary injunction. Nor do we think the learned court erred in refusing to consider the affidavit referred to in the second specification. As shown by the record, it was not presented until “ after respondents had read their affidavits and closed their arguments.” According to the orderly course of procedure, that was too late; and, in the absence of anything to show the contrary, the presumption is that no satisfactory reason was given for the omission to offer it in time. But, aside from that, there appears to be nothing in the affidavit in question that could have had the effect of producing a different result. It is only in clear cases of abuse that the exercise of a trial court’s discretion, in the orderly conduct of a case, should be interfered with. This is not such a case.

It is neither necessary nor proper that we should now intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case generally. It goes back for further proceedings — possibly for final hearing on bill, answer and full proofs. A materially different state of facts may then be presented. We therefore adhere to our general rule in appeals from interlocutory decrees, and merely hold that, as presented to the court below, the case is not one that would have justified a preliminary injunction.

The decree is therefore affirmed and appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

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

Per Curiam,

In any view that can be reasonably taken of the facts presented to the court below by the bill, affidavits, counter affidavits, etc. in this case, we are all of opinion that there was no error in refusing to grant the preliminary injunction. Nor do we think the learned court erred in refusing to consider the affidavit referred to in the second specification. As shown by the record, it was not presented until “ after respondents had read their affidavits and closed their arguments.” According to the orderly course of procedure, that was too late; and, in the absence of anything to show the contrary, the presumption is that no satisfactory reason was given for the omission to offer it in time. But, aside from that, there appears to be nothing in the affidavit in question that could have had the effect of producing a different result. It is only in clear cases of abuse that the exercise of a trial court’s discretion, in the orderly conduct of a case, should be interfered with. This is not such a case.

It is neither necessary nor proper that we should now intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case generally. It goes back for further proceedings — possibly for final hearing on bill, answer and full proofs. A materially different state of facts may then be presented. We therefore adhere to our general rule in appeals from interlocutory decrees, and merely hold that, as presented to the court below, the case is not one that would have justified a preliminary injunction.

The decree is therefore affirmed and appeal dismissed, with costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A. 1111, 178 Pa. 215, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daugherty-typewriter-co-v-kittanning-iron-steel-manufacturing-co-pa-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack