From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herr v. Rumisek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 3, 1931
153 A. 728 (Pa. 1931)

Opinion

January 20, 1931.

February 3, 1931.

Equity — Preliminary injunction — Appeals — Doubtful case.

1. A preliminary injunction is never granted except in clear cases where the right is unquestionable and to prevent irreparable injury. [10]

2. A refusal to grant a preliminary injunction will not be reversed, where the right to such injunction is doubtful. [10]

Argued January 20, 1931.

Before WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER, SCHAFFER and MAXEY, JJ.

Appeal, No. 60, March T., 1931, by plaintiffs, from decree of C. P. Beaver Co., sitting in Equity at No. 7, Dec. T., 1930, refusing to grant a preliminary injunction, in case of Jacob Herr et al. v. John Rumisek, Joseph Rouzer, James Young, president; Flora Calhoon, secretary; Charles N. Young, directors of School District of West Mayfield Borough, Beaver County, Pa., and Porter Hoover Construction Co., general contractors, their agents, employees and subcontractors. Affirmed.

Bill for injunction. Before READER, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Preliminary injunction refused. Plaintiffs appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting record.

Stewart P. McConnel, for appellants.

L. L. Ewing, of Reed Ewing, for appellees.


This is an appeal from the refusal of the trial court to award a preliminary injunction on a taxpayer's bill to restrain the school authorities of the School District of the Borough of West Mayfield from proceeding with the erection of a school building. In 1928 the borough was created out of a part of White Township. The total indebtedness of the latter was then $38,405.52. Of this, approximately one-third was charged against the borough and two-thirds against the remaining township. The main question here is whether the township's two-thirds should be charged as a liability of the borough in computing its indebtedness. If so, building the new schoolhouse might create an indebtedness exceeding the constitutional two per cent limit. The contention of the appellee was that while creditors might proceed against the borough for the entire indebtedness, yet, if so, the latter could compel reimbursement from the township and, hence, it should not be treated as a liability. There was also some question as to the cost of the proposed school building, etc. We are not convinced that the refusal of the preliminary injunction was error. It is never granted except in a clear case where the right is unquestionable and to prevent irreparable injury. See Crawford v. Sullivan, 238 Pa. 142. In conformity with our usual practice we refrain from discussion of the merits of the case at this time.

The order is affirmed and the record is remitted for further proceedings. Costs to abide the event of the suit.


Summaries of

Herr v. Rumisek

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Feb 3, 1931
153 A. 728 (Pa. 1931)
Case details for

Herr v. Rumisek

Case Details

Full title:Herr et al., Appellants, v. Rumisek et al

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 3, 1931

Citations

153 A. 728 (Pa. 1931)
153 A. 728

Citing Cases

Vul. R. P. Co. v. Scheckter

Rubin v. Bailey, 398 Pa. 271, 157 A.2d 882 (1960); Herman v. Dixon, 393 Pa. 33, 36, 141 A.2d 576 (1958). But…

McDonald v. Noga

With these facts before him, the chancellor cannot be justly said to have been guilty of an abuse of…