Murray v. Hill

• Decision Date: 06 July 1948
• Citation: 359 Pa. 540,59 A.2d 877
• Parties: Murray et al. v. Hill et al., Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

59 A.2d 877

359 Pa. 540

Murray et al. v. Hill et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 6, 1948

Argued May 26, 1948

Appeal, No. 130, March T., 1948, from decree of Common Pleas Westmoreland Co., in Equity, No. 2253, in case of Philip Murray, International President, United Steel Workers of America, C.I.O. et al., individually and as Administrator of Local Union 302 et al. v. Frank H. Hill et al. Decree affirmed.

Bill in equity. Before LAIRD, P.J.

Adjudication filed finding for plaintiffs. Defendants appealed.

The decree of the court below is affirmed on the authority of Commonwealth v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287, 126 A. 765, where this Court said:

"Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable (Paxson's App., 106 Pa. 429, 436-7; Sunbury Boro. v. Sunbury &amp Susquehanna Ry. Co., 241 Pa. 357; see also Holden v Llewellyn, 262 Pa. 400); here the discretion of the court was rightly exercised and we find no reversible error."

The costs are to be paid by the appellants.

Vincent R. Smith, with him Andrew S. Romito, Morris J. Kaplan and Myron W. Lamproplos , for appellants.

James Gregg, with him Jason Richardson, Portser, Gregg & McConnell and Vincent E. Williams, for appellees.

Before MAXEY, C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM

The decree of the court below is affirmed on the authority of Commonwealth v. Katz , 281 Pa. 287, 126 A. 765, where this Court said:

"Our uniform rule is that, on an appeal from a decree which refuses, grants or continues a preliminary injunction, we will look only to see if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below, and we will not further consider the merits of the case or pass upon the reasons for or against such action, unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or that the rules of law relied on are palpably wrong or clearly inapplicable (Paxson's App., 106 Pa. 429, 436-7; Sunbury Boro. v. Sunbury &amp Susquehanna Ry. Co., 241 Pa. 357; see also Holden v. Llewellyn, ...