Golden v. Markson Coal Co.

41 A.2d 660, 351 Pa. 493
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 8, 1945·No. Appeal, 299·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order dissolving a five-day injunction granted pursuant to rule 38 on bill and affidavits without notice to the defendant and subject to a *494 motion to continue the injunction. After hearing evidence on the application to continue the injunction, defendant’s motion to dissolve was granted. We have held that an appeal lies from such an order: Annenberg v. Roberts, 333 Pa. 203, 2 A.2d 612. The general rule is that in the absence of basic error of law, this court will not pass on the merits of the case which must subsequently he developed and will not reverse the action of the chancellor if he had reasonable grounds for making the order complained of: Annenberg v. Roberts, supra. The learned court was right in holding that the relationship which these parties had created and acted under for some months prior to obtaining the injunction should not have been summarily terminated.

Decree affirmed at costs of appellant.

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

Golden v. Markson Coal Co., 41 A.2d 660, 351 Pa. 493 (Pa. 1945).

41 A.2d 660 (Golden v. Markson Coal Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
126 A.2d 132 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
Roth v. Columbia Distributing Co.
89 A.2d 825 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1952)