Case ID: pa_242/html/0120-01.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

Ingram, Appellant, v. Bream.
    
      Equity — Preliminary injunction — Restraining use of land — Oil ■wells.
    
    A preliminary injunction was properly dissolved in proceedings in equity to restrain defendants from operating for oil upon land of which it appears they had been in undisputed possession for. a number of years, and upon which they had drilled a number of wells, built tanks, established pipe line connections and produced large quantities of oil.
    Argued April 21, 1913.
    Appeals, Nos. 137 and 138, Oct. T., 1913, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., July T.,. 1913, Nos. 528-529, dissolving preliminary injunction in case of George W. Ingram, John C. Ingram, et al., Heirs at law of William Ingram, deceased, v. E. A. Bream and the Valvoline Oil Company, á corporation of New Jersey, doing business as the Valvoline Pipe Lines, and the Valvoline Oil Works, Limited, and the Valvoline Pipe Lines; and in case of George W. Ingram, John C. Ingram, et al., Heirs at law of William Ingram, deceased, v. E. A. Bream, and the Valvoline Oil Company, a corporation of New Jersey, doing business as the Valvoline Pipe Lines, and the Valvoline Pipe Works, and the Valvoline Pipe Lines and Thomas R. Ingram.
    Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezát, Potter and Moschziskeb, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Motion for preliminary injunction. Before Maofarlane, J.
    
      The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
    The court granted a preliminary injunction, which it subsequently dissolved. Plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court dissolving the preliminary injunction.
    
      Geo. Hettriek Bonner, for appellants.
    
      A. Leo Weil, of Weil & Thorp, for appellee.
    June 27, 1913:
   Per Curiam,

Appeal No. 137 is from a decree dissolving a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from operating for oil on land of which they, for a number of years, have been in undisputed possession and on which they have drilled a number of wells, built tanks, established pipe line connection and are producing large quantities of oil. The case presented by the bill was evidently not one for a preliminary injunction and the order dissolving the injunction was properly made. Appeal No. 138 presents the same questions in relation to another tract of land.

The decrees are affirmed at the cost of the appellants.