National Automobile Service Inc. v. Barfod
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
Defendant has moved to quash, on the grounds that the “order appealed from is purely interlocutory” and that “there is no act......which authorizes the appeal.”
The Act of June 12, 1879, P. L. 177, provides for an appeal “in all cases in equity in which a......preliminary injunction has been refused.” The present case involves an appeal from an order dissolving a preliminary injunction. The injunction under attack was first granted subject to a motion to continue, which motion was afterward overruled and the injunction dissolved. This state of affairs has repeatedly been treated by…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Reeves v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Mesta Machine Co. v. Dunbar Furnace Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Borough of Sunbury v. Sunbury & Susquehanna Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1913
- Casinghead Gas Co. v. OsbornSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
- Bethlehem v. AllentownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Knowles's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Annenberg v. RobertsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Rubin v. BaileySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. DriscollSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Philadelphia Record Co. v. Curtis-Martin Newspapers, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.