Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com.

3 A.2d 417, 332 Pa. 429, 1938 Pa. LEXIS 794

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The five Judges who heard these appeals all agree that they must be dismissed. We have held in a number of cases that: “While the granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is the subject of appeal, yet in such case we refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation and merely determine whether, under the facts presented in the court below, there was a reasonable ground for its action”: Holden v. Llewellyn et al., 262 Pa. 400, at pp. 402 and 403. *

The questions involved come from the Election Code of June 3,1937, P. L. 1333, and we find that the court below had “reasonable ground for its action.”

Appeals dismissed.

* See also: Gemmell et al. v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146, 151; Sunbury Boro. v. Sunbury & S. R. Co., 241 Pa. 357, 359; Hoffman v. Howell, 242 Pa. 112, 114; Deal v. Erie Coal & Coke Co., 246 Pa. 552, 555; Brock v. Atlantic Refining Co., 268 Pa. 231, 233; Casinghead Gas Co. v. Osborn, 269 Pa. 395, 397; Com. v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287, 288; Lesher v. Gassner Co., 285 Pa. 43, 44; Howard v. Goodnough et al., 292 Pa. 547, 550; Hoffman v. J. & S. Ry. Co. et al., 309 Pa. 183; Harrisburg Dairies, Inc., v. Eisaman et al., 328 Pa. 195, 197.