Case Name: City Ice Company v. Easton Merchants' Ice Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1919-06-21
Citations: 265 Pa. 310
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 29
Parties: City Ice Company v. Easton Merchants’ Ice Company, Appellant.
Judges: Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 265
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
City Ice Company v. Easton Merchants’ Ice Company, Appellant.
Practice, Supreme Court — Appeals—Preliminary injunction — Consideration of merits.
On an appeal from an order granting a preliminary injunction the Supreme Court will not consider the merits of the case where there was apparently sufficient ground for the action of the lower court.
Argued May 13, 1919.
Appeal, No. 29, Jan. T., 1920, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Northampton Co., sitting in equity, April T., 1919, No. 4, granting a preliminary injunction in the case of City Ice Company v. Easton Merchants’ Ice Company.
Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
Affirmed.
Bill in equity for a preliminary injunction. Before Stewart, P. J.
The court continued the preliminary injunction until further order. Defendant appealed.
Errors assigned were (1-6) the conclusions of law; and (7) the decree of the court.
Edward J. Fox, with him James W. Fox, for appellant.
E. J. Steele, with him Geo. F. Coffin, for appellee.
June 21, 1919:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
This appeal is from a preliminary injunction. As there was apparently sufficient ground for the action of the court below, we will not, under our established practice, consider the merits of the case at this stage of it, and 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.
Appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.