Summit Township v. Fennell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Summit Township v. Fennell

140 A.2d 789, 392 Pa. 313, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 458

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 2, 1958

DocketAppeal, 5

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 140 A.2d 789 (Summit Township v. Fennell) 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

Summit Township v. Fennell, 140 A.2d 789, 392 Pa. 313, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 458 (Pa. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mb. Chief Justice Jones,

TMs is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to grant a preliminary injunction on the facts averred in the plaintiff’s complaint and injunction affidavits; no bond was posted, the plaintiff being a political subdivision.

The plaintiff sought by its bill to enjoin the individual defendant from disposing of garbage on property which he owned in the complaining township by the “land fill” method for which operation he held a license from the defendant Butler County Health Department.

As recently stated in Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-344, 123 A. 2d 626, “Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree wMch refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inappli *315 cable: Commonwealth v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287, 288, 126 A. 765; Lesher v. Thomas S. Cassner Co., 285 Pa. 43, 44, 131 A. 657; Murray v. Hill, 359 Pa. 540, 541, 59 A. 2d 877; Cohen et al. v. A. M. Byers Company et al., 363 Pa. 618, 619, 70 A. 2d 837.”

A mere glance at the record reveals ample grounds for the action of the court below. The chancellor was justifiably of the opinion that irreparable damage would not be done the plaintiff by continuing the land fill operation until final determination of the issues involved in the suit and that, balancing the equities, “less harm would befall the Township of Summit by putting under ground there the garbage than by permitting it to accumulate ... at the back doors of the residents of Butler City, . . .”.

Order affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

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

Opinion by

Mb. Chief Justice Jones,

TMs is an appeal from the refusal of the court below to grant a preliminary injunction on the facts averred in the plaintiff’s complaint and injunction affidavits; no bond was posted, the plaintiff being a political subdivision.

The plaintiff sought by its bill to enjoin the individual defendant from disposing of garbage on property which he owned in the complaining township by the “land fill” method for which operation he held a license from the defendant Butler County Health Department.

As recently stated in Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 385 Pa. 342, 343-344, 123 A. 2d 626, “Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree wMch refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inappli *315 cable: Commonwealth v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287, 288, 126 A. 765; Lesher v. Thomas S. Cassner Co., 285 Pa. 43, 44, 131 A. 657; Murray v. Hill, 359 Pa. 540, 541, 59 A. 2d 877; Cohen et al. v. A. M. Byers Company et al., 363 Pa. 618, 619, 70 A. 2d 837.”

A mere glance at the record reveals ample grounds for the action of the court below. The chancellor was justifiably of the opinion that irreparable damage would not be done the plaintiff by continuing the land fill operation until final determination of the issues involved in the suit and that, balancing the equities, “less harm would befall the Township of Summit by putting under ground there the garbage than by permitting it to accumulate ... at the back doors of the residents of Butler City, . . .”.

Order affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.2d 789, 392 Pa. 313, 1958 Pa. LEXIS 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summit-township-v-fennell-pa-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack