Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Co.

91 A. 940, 245 Pa. 585, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 925

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 22, 1914

DocketAppeal, No. 181

StatusPublished

This text of 91 A. 940 (Simon v. Majestic Apartment House 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

Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Co., 91 A. 940, 245 Pa. 585, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 925 (Pa. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

.Pee CUBlAMj

The decree appealed from was made in the exercise of the chancery powers of the court. It does not deprive the appellant of his right to have his execution satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the personal property of the Majestic Apartment House Company if he has such right. The bond given by the Fidelity Title and Trust Company insures the payment for said property of a sum largely in excess of what will be required to pay the appellant if he has the preference which he [589]*589claims. Whether he has such preference can be determined by the court after due consideration upon final hearing or on distribution of the proceeds of sale made by the receiver. We have not been persuaded that we should depart from the rule as to non-interference with preliminary injunctions, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any rights of the appellant, the costs to be disposed of on final hearing.

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

.Pee CUBlAMj

The decree appealed from was made in the exercise of the chancery powers of the court. It does not deprive the appellant of his right to have his execution satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the personal property of the Majestic Apartment House Company if he has such right. The bond given by the Fidelity Title and Trust Company insures the payment for said property of a sum largely in excess of what will be required to pay the appellant if he has the preference which he [589]*589claims. Whether he has such preference can be determined by the court after due consideration upon final hearing or on distribution of the proceeds of sale made by the receiver. We have not been persuaded that we should depart from the rule as to non-interference with preliminary injunctions, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any rights of the appellant, the costs to be disposed of on final hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A. 940, 245 Pa. 585, 1914 Pa. LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simon-v-majestic-apartment-house-co-pa-1914.