Sheaffer and Heckscher's Appeals
| Citation | 100 Pa. 379 |
| Parties | Appeals of Sheaffer and Heckscher, et al. |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1882 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, GORDON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ. SHARSWOOD, C. J., and PAXSON, J., absent
APPEAL from the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county: Of January Term 1880, No. 334.
George W. Biddle and Hughes & Farquhar, for the appellants.
James B. Reilly, for the appellees.
May 1st, 1882. PER CURIAM.
This being a preliminary decree we will not now interfere with it. The whole case can be considered on a final hearing.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellants.
The appellants subsequently presented a petition for a rehearing, and filed the following reasons:-
First. The effect of dismissing the appeal and permitting the preliminary injunction to stand is not to leave things in the condition in which they were originally, but on the contrary suspends the working of a portion of the appellants' mines for an indefinite period, to their very great loss.
Second. The plant of the appellants, as shown by the proofs before the court, cost over $300,000, and they are disabled by the injunction from working a portion of their mines, to their manifest loss.
Third. The security given by the complainants is utterly inadequate to cover this loss, the same not amounting to more than $2,000, and the security may not be ultimately able to respond even to this amount.
Fourth. The utmost loss sworn to is in Conville's case, and as shown by his evidence is not more than $1,500. The appellants are amply able to pay this amount if ultimately liable, and are willing to give security therefor if required by the court.
Fifth. So far from preserving things in their existing condition at the time the injunction was granted, the preliminary injunction arrested the defendants in the pursuit of their usual and ordinary lawful business, when, as shown by complainants' witnesses, all or nearly all the alleged damage to their property had been already committed. Such damage, moreover, was capable of exact pecuniary estimate. The continuance of this injunction perpetuates this abnormal, irregular, and unjust state of things.
Sixth. The effect of dismissing this appeal is practically to do away with the Act of Assembly authorizing an appeal from a preliminary or interlocutory injunction. It will moreover be attended by consequences very disastrous to the mining interests of the Commonwealth. A threat of an injunction will induce coal operators, under the fear of having their business stopped, to submit to any terms, no matter how severe, their opponents may demand, rather than risk the granting of a preliminary injunction; since the dismissal of the present appeal will be erected into a precedent for the granting and perpetuation of any preliminary injunction, no matter how improvidently the same may have been allowed, until the final hearing of the cause. This is apparent from the following considerations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mangum v. Maryland State Bd. of Censors
... ... MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF CENSORS ... No. 109 ... Court of Appeals of Maryland ... Nov. 25, 1974 ... [328 A.2d 284] ... Page 177 ... Dyess, 172 So.2d 528, 531 (La.App.1965); Appeals of Sheaffer and Herkscher, 100 Pa. 379, 382 (1882); Houston Compressed Steel Corp. v. State, 456 S.W.2d 768, ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Webster City v. Dutcher
... ... From the judgment entered on this verdict the manufacturing company appeals. The appellant contends, first, that no breach of the warranty is shown by the record; and, second, ... 115;Barker v. Wing, 58 Barb. 73; Henry v. Henry, 4 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 253; Sheaffer's Appeal, 100 Pa. 379;Barton v. Long, 45 N. J. Eq. 161, 16 Atl. 683;Insurance Co. v. Lemar, 10 ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Webster City v. Dutcher
... ... From the judgment entered on this ... verdict the manufacturing company appeals. The appellant ... contends, first, that no breach of the warranty is shown by ... the record; ... 115; Barker v. Wing, 58 ... Barb. 73; Henry v. Henry, 4 Dem. Sur. (N. Y.) 253; ... Sheaffer's Appeal, 100 Pa. 379; Barton v ... Long, 45 N.J.Eq. 160, 16 A. 683; Insurance Co. v ... Lemar, ... ...
-
Solar Electric Co. v. Brookville Boro.
... ... Argued: ... March 17, 1930 ... Appeals, Nos. 116 and 125, March T., 1929, by defendants, ... from decree of C.P. Jefferson Co., Aug. T., ... 400 ... The ... appeal did not suspend proceedings in the court below: ... Sheaffer's App., 100 Pa. 379; Haught v. Irwin, ... 166 Pa. 548; Drum v. Dinkelacker, 262 Pa. 392; Slate ... ...