Case Name: Smith et al., Appellants, v. Blanchard et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1922-02-20
Citations: 273 Pa. 158
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 34
Parties: Smith et al., Appellants, v. Blanchard et al.
Judges: Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 273
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
Smith et al., Appellants, v. Blanchard et al.
Appeals — Equity—Dissolution of preliminary injunction on condition — Discretion of court — Abuse.
1. Dissolving a preliminary injunction on condition that defendants pay into .court an amount the chancellor deems sufficient to indemnify plaintiffs in the event of the final decree being in their favor, is within the discretion of the court and will not be reversed on appeal except for plain abuse.
2. Not decided whether such a decree is appealable.
Argued January 31, 1922.
Appeal, No. 34, Oct. T., 1922, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Westmoreland Co., No. 1088, Equity Docket, dissolving preliminary injunction, in case of Clement V. Smith et al., and Merchants Trust Co. of Greensburg, Guardian of Mary Inez Keefer, v. William G. Blanchard and Blanchard Coal Co.
Before Moschzisker, C. J., Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Sadler and Schaefer, JJ.
Affirmed.
Motion to dissolve preliminary injunction. Before Copeland, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.
Injunction dissolved. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was decree, quoting record.
John E. Kunlde, for appellants.
E. E. Marker, Win. 8. Rial, George W. Flowers, P. K. Shaner and R. D. Laird, for appellees, were not heard.
February 20, 1922:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This is an equity proceeding wherein a preliminary injunction was granted, which was subsequently dissolved on condition that defendants pay into court an amount the chancellor deemed sufficient to indemnify plaintiffs in event of the final decree being in their favor; plaintiffs have appealed from this decree.
It is sufficient for present purposes to say, without deciding whether or not the ruling complained of is an appealable order, we are not convinced of an abuse of discretion.
Appeal dismissed at cost of appellants.