Goldsworthy v. Boyle

34 A. 630, 175 Pa. 246, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1242
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 27, 1896·No. Appeal, No. 303·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

All the material facts of this somewhat novel proceeding in equity, together with the reasons which prompted the dissolution of the preliminary injunction and dismissal of the bill, are fully set forth in the opinion of the learned president of the 29th judicial district, who specially presided at the hearing, and need not be repeated. We are satisfied from an examination of the record that the findings of fact as well as the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are substantially correct, and fully warranted the dismissal of the bill. Further discussion of the questions involved would serve no useful purpose. The decree is therefore affirmed on the opinion referred to, and the appeal is dismissed at plaintiffs’ costs.

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

Goldsworthy v. Boyle, 34 A. 630, 175 Pa. 246, 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1242 (Pa. 1896).

34 A. 630 (Goldsworthy v. Boyle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Palermo v. Pittsburgh
13 A.2d 24 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1940)
Williams's Appeal
167 A. 587 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1933)
Cella v. Davidson
156 A. 99 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1931)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Snyder
144 A. 748 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Wolfe v. Burleigh
12 Pa. D. & C. 14 (Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, 1928)
McKay-Smith v. Philadelphia
54 Pa. Super. 257 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)
Ekern v. McGovern
142 N.W. 595 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1913)
Gallagher v. McAdams
49 Pa. Super. 81 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1912)
Caffrey v. Caffrey
28 Pa. Super. 22 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1905)
Dayton v. Carter
56 A. 30 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1903)