Legal Opinion
Fingal v. Millvale Boro.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 11, 1894No. Appeal No. 44PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Appeal No. 44, Oct. T., 1894, by plaintiffs, taxpayers, from decree of C. P. No. 2, Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1893, No. 636, refusing preliminary injunction. Argued with preceding case. Bill for injunction. The bill contained averments substantially as in the complaint in the preceding case. The court refused to order a preliminary injunction. Error assigned was order, quoting it.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Green,
For the reasons stated in the opinion now filed in the case of the Appeal of Howard et al., No. 41, Oct. Term, 1894, the decree of the court below is affirmed and the appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Mateer v. Swissvale BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Bennett Water Co. v. Millvale BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1901