Case ID: pa_265/html/0128-01.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

Beetem et al., Appellants, v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.
    
      Equity — Preliminary injunction — Appeals—Status quo.
    
    The established practice of the appellate court on an appeal from the award or refusal of a preliminary injunction is to decline to consider the merits of the case; and when it appears that there was apparently sufficient ground for the action of the court below, the status quo will not be disturbed, but will be continued to final hearing.
    Argued April 30, 1919.
    Appeal, No. 328, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Cumberland Co., March T., 1919, No. 1, dissolving preliminary injunction in case of Edward C. Beetem and C. Gilbert Beetem, trading as E. C. Beetem & Son, v. The Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co.
    Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Bill in equity for an injunction to restrain the defendant from cutting off steam. Before Sadler, P. J.
    Prom the record it appeared that plaintiff had refused to pay a bill for steam under a change of rates which he alleged was excessive. The court awarded a preliminary injunction, which it subsequently dissolved. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in dissolving the preliminary injunction.
    
      
      William Draper Lewis and Joseph P. McKeehan, for appellant.
    
      E. M. Biddle, Jr., with Mm Galéb 8. Brmton, for appellee.
    May 21, 1919:
   Per Curiam,

Our established practice on an appeal from the award or refusal of a preliminary injunction is to decline to consider the merits of the case, and, when it appears that there was apparently sufficient ground for the action of the court below, the status quo will not be disturbed, but will be continued to final hearing: Gemmell et al. v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146; Hoffman v. Howell, 242 Pa. 112; Bixler v. Swartz, 257 Pa. 300. TMs appeal comes within the rule, and it is, therefore, dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.