Keeling v. Pittsburg, Virginia & Charleston Railway Co.

Citations

• 205 Pa. 31
• 54 A. 485
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 506

Syllabus

<p>Municipalities — Acts of March 7,1901, and June 20,1901 — Mayor—Recorder — Ordinance—Signing ordinance.</p> <p>After the passage of the Act of March 7,1901, P. L. 20, which abolished the office of the mayor of Pittsburg, and substituted in its place the office of recorder, the mayor holding over as a de facto mayor had the power to sign ordinances until the recorder actually took his place.</p> <p>Equity — Injunction—Balancing of injuries — Publie interest — L aches.</p> <p>An injunction is of grace and not of right, and a chancellor is not bound to make a decree which will do far more mischief and work far greater injury than the wrong he is asked to redress.</p> <p>Very slight delay on the part of the complainant in invoking equitable relief, when the work is of magnitude and public interests are prejudiced, will be sufficient to stay the hand of a chancellor.</p> <p>An ordinance was passed Aprils, 1901, authorizing the officers of a city to enter into a contract with a railroad company to elevate its tracks and build a retaining wall over and along the line of a street, to construct its roadbed over part of the street and to construct a bridge and a footway. It also provided for the vacation of certain streets. On April 13,1901, the contract was executed by the city. On June 22, 1901, a bill in equity was filed by abutting lot owners on the streets affected by the contract, setting forth that their means of communication would be cut off and their property seriously damaged if the improvements mentioned in the contract were carried to completion, and that the ordinance was illegal, not having been petitioned for by sufficient lot owners in number and interest. Prior to the filing of the bill, the railroad company had expended in construction of the improvements large sums of money, and had purchased and made contracts to purchase valuable real estate on the faith of the contract. Held, that the plaintiffs were guilty of laches and that their bill was properly