Drum v. Dinkelacker

Citations

• 262 Pa. 392
• 105 A. 509
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 658

Syllabus

<p>Equity — Equity practice — Certification to law side — Injunction —Bonds—Mandatory preliminary injunction — Final decree — Appeals — Practice, Supreme Court — Assignment of error — Publicity —Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. MO.</p> <p>1. No act of assembly allows an appeal from a refusal to dissolve a preliminary injunction.</p> <p>2. On an appeal from the granting of a preliminary injunction, the court will not consider the question as to whether or not the case should have been certified to the law side of the court, under the Act of June 7, 1907, P. L. 440, if the court below was not moved to certify it thereto.</p> <p>3. Such an application, even if made, would be interlocutory, and not the subject of an appeal until after final decree.</p> <p>4. A complaint that an injunction bond contains but one surety, will not be considered, where, without objection, a new bond with two sureties has been substituted.</p> <p>5. An appeal from the granting of a preliminary injunction must be promptly made. Ordinarily it will be dismissed, as of course, if delayed beyond the time when the case might have been decided on final hearing.</p> <p>6. It is only in extreme eases that a mandatory preliminary injunction is proper.</p> <p>1. On a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction, unaccompanied by a motion to extend it, the court can only dissolve or refuse to dissolve it, or modify it by making it less stringent.</p> <p>8. That which is in effect a final decree cannot be entered on a preliminary hearing, except with consent of the parties.</p> <p>9. An assignment alleging error in refusing to dissolve an injunction because but one surety was given on the bond and also because of delay in final hearing, is bad for duplicity.</p>