Case ID: pa-super_85/html/0122-01.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

Borough of Minersville, Appellant, v. Cullen.
    March 16, 1925:
    
      Equity — Injunction —■ Preliminary injunction — Refusal — Appeals.
    
    On an appeal from a refusal of a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from continuing an alleged trespass, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed, where there is no evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the chancellor.
    In such case, where the subject complained of is of a public nature, the Superior Court will immediately dispose of the case, without a discussion of the facts.
    Argued March 12,1925.
    Appeal, No. 73, Oct. T., 1925, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. Schuylkill Co., Jan. T., 1925, No. 5, in Equity, in the case of The Corporation of the Borough of Minersville v. James H. Cullen, trading as the Cullen Fuel Company, Allen F. Keller, Supt., William Koons, Gen. Mgr., and Joseph McDonald, Foreman..
    Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
    Dismissed.
    Bill in equity for injunction. Before Koch, J.
    The court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.
    
      Error assigned was the decree of the court.
    
      Roger Prosser, Borough Solicitor, and with him Edmund D. Smith, for appellant.
    
      Jno. F. Whalen and George Ellis, for appellees.
   Per Curiam,

This, is an appeal from the refusal of a preliminary injunction. The bill prayed to restrain defendants from continuing an alleged trespass. We shall not refer to the merits at this time, but in view of the public nature of the subject complained of in the bill, we shall immediately dispose of the case.

As no abuse of discretion appears the appeal is dismissed.