Case Name: Kingsley, Appellant, v. Stimson
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1902-04-28
Citations: 202 Pa. 421
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 226
Parties: Kingsley, Appellant, v. Stimson.
Judges: Before Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 202
Pages: 421–422

Head Matter:
Kingsley, Appellant, v. Stimson.
School law — Directors—Purchase of land.
A decree dissolving a preliminary injunction restraining school directors from purchasing land, will not be reversed where it appears that the object of the bill was to review the discretion of the directors in making the proposed purchase, and tiie chief ground for complaint was that the record of the proceedings of the directors failed to disclose the exact quantity of land to be purchased, and that the proof showed that the quantity intended to be purchased was one and three quarters acres which was alleged to be excessive.
Argued April 22, 1902.
Appeal, No. 226, Jan. T., 1901, by-plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Bradford Co., Sept. T., 1901, No. 2, dissolving preliminary injunction in case of John F. Kingsley, W. H. H. Gore, F. H. Moody, D. W. Tripp and H. E. Queer v. G. H. Stimson, C. H. Satterlee, J. A. Ruggles, H. T. Holcomb, C. L. Thomas and F. G. Sairs, School Directors of School District of Athens Borough.
Before Dean, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
Affirmed.
Bill in equity for an injunction.
From the record it appeared that on May 6,1901, the directors of the Athens borough school district voted to purchase two lots of land in the borough adjoining the high school lot for the price of 82,200. On May 17,1901, the same resolution was passed with a provision for the issuing of bonds for the payment for the lots. In neither resolution was the exact quantity of land specified, the lots being described as “The Mathewson and Gregory Lots.” The proof showed that these lots together with the high school lot made altogether about one and three quarter acres. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that this amount of land was excessive, that the directors had abused their discretion, and that the record of their proceedings was insufficient, since it did not disclose the quantity of land purchased. The court dissolved the preliminary injunction.
Error assigned was the decree of the court.
W. J. Young, with him J. T. Corbin, for appellant.
April 28, 1902:
L. T. Hoyt and H. F. Maynard, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The decree of the court below dissolving the preliminary injunction in this case is affirmed.