Case Name: North Shore Railroad Company v. The Pennsylvania Company, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1911-04-10
Citations: 231 Pa. 307
Docket Number: Nos. 1 and 2; Appeals, Nos. 35 and 36
Parties: North Shore Railroad Company v. The Pennsylvania Company, Appellant
Judges: Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 231
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
North Shore Railroad Company v. The Pennsylvania Company, Appellant
(Nos. 1 and 2).
Appeals — Preliminary injunctions — Practice—Supreme Court.
On an appeal from decrees continuing preliminary injunctions until further orders of the court, where apparently there was sufficient ground for the action of the court, the Supreme Court will not depart from the established practice not to consider the merits until the cases are presented after final hearing in the common pleas.
Argued Feb. 6, 1911.
Appeals, Nos. 35 and 36, Oct. T., 1911, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Beaver Co., in equity, Sept. T., 191Q, Nos. 2 and 3, continuing preliminary injunction in case of North Shore Railroad Company v. The Pennsylvania Company, leasing and operating The Pittsburg, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway.
April 10, 1911:
Before Fell, C. J., Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin, Stewart and Moschzisker, JJ.
Affirmed.
Bill in equity for an injunction. Before Holt, P. J.
The nature of appeal appears by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
W. A. McConnel, for appellant.
Arthur E. Barnett and James L. Hogan, for appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
These appeals are from decrees continuing, until further order of the court, preliminary injunctions restraining the defendant from interfering with the connection of the tracks of the plaintiff's road with its own and from entering on the plaintiff's right of way. They relate to the same subject-matter and were argued together. Apparently there was sufficient ground for the action of the court in awarding the ínjúnction and there is no reason why this court should depart from the established practice not to consider the merits until the cases are presented after final hearing in the common pleas.
The appeals are dismissed.