Opinion
December 28, 1938.
December 31, 1938.
Appeals — Granting or refusal of preliminary injunction — Scope of review — Merits — Reasonable ground for action of lower court.
The granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is the subject of appeal, but in such case the appellate court will refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation and merely determine whether, under the facts presented in the court below, there was a reasonable ground for its action.
Argued December 28, 1938.
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
Appeal, No. 38, May T., 1939, from decree of C. P. Dauphin Co., Equity Docket, No. 1553; No. 915, Commonwealth Docket, 1938, in case of Samuel W. Salus et al. v. David L. Lawrence, Secretary of Commonwealth, et al. Appeal dismissed.
Bill in equity.
Preliminary injunction granted against both defendants. Decree entered continuing injunction against defendant, Secretary of the Commonwealth, and dissolving injunction as to defendant, candidate for office. Plaintiffs appealed.
Error assigned was order dissolving injunction against defendant, candidate for office.
Marshall H. Morgan, with him Earl V. Compton, for appellants.
Lemuel B. Schofield and James Todaro, Deputy Attorney General, with them Guy K. Bard, Attorney General, and J. Dress Pannell, for appellees.
The five Judges who heard this appeal all agree that it must be dismissed. We have held in a number of cases that: "While the granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is the subject of appeal, yet in such case we refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation and merely determine whether, under the facts presented in the court below, there was a reasonable ground for its action": Holden v. Llewellyn et al., 262 Pa. 400, at pp. 402 and 403.
See also: Gemmell et al. v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146, 151; Sunbury Boro. v. Sunbury S. R. Co., 241 Pa. 357, 359; Hoffman v. Howell, 242 Pa. 112, 114; Deal v. Erie Coal Coke Co., 246 Pa. 552, 555; Brock v. Atlantic Refining Co., 268 Pa. 231, 233; Casinghead Gas Co. v. Osborn, 269 Pa. 395, 397; Com. v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287, 288; Lesher v. Gassner Co., 285 Pa. 43, 44; Howard v. Goodnough et al., 292 Pa. 547, 550; Hoffman v. J. S. Ry. Co. et al., 309 Pa. 183; Harrisburg Dairies, Inc., v. Eisaman et al., 328 Pa. 195, 197.
The questions involved come from the Election Code of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, and we find that the court below had "reasonable ground for its action."
Appeal dismissed.