Case ID: pa_285/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gilliam et ux., Appellants, v. Randall.
    
      Appeals — Refusal of preliminary injunction — Equity •— Discretion of court — Abuse.
    An appellate court will not reverse a decree refusing to issue a preliminary injunction, where the record fails to show an abuse of discretion.
    Argued January 26, 1926.
    Appeal, No. 134, Jan. T., 1926, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., March T., 1923, No. 6043, refusing preliminary injunction, in case of Lloyd Y. Gilliam and Edna M. Gilliam v. Harry L. Randall.
    Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart and Sadler, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    
      Bill for injunction. Before Audenried, P. J.
    Preliminary injunction refused. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned was decree, quoting record.
    
      Thomas B. Hall, with him Alvin L. Levi, for appellants.
    
      W. Horace Hepburn, Jr., for appellee.
    February 8, 1926:
   Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the refusal to issue a preliminary injunction; the record fails to show a plain abuse of discretion, and under such circumstances we do not disturb the decree: for authorities see Lesher v. Gassner Co., 285 Pa. 43.

The decree is affirmed at cost of appellants.