DocketNumber: Appeal, 410
Judges: Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson, Kephart, Sadler, Schaffer
Filed Date: 11/23/1925
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
This is an appeal from the refusal to issue a preliminary injunction. *Page 44
Plaintiff filed a bill in equity to restrain defendant company from erecting an addition to its sheet metal factory on a lot adjoining that upon which the former lives. The bill alleged that the neighborhood involved is exclusively residential in character; that the erection and operation of the proposed plant would cause such annoyance and discomfort to plaintiff as to interfere with the peace and enjoyment of her home; finally, that it would depreciate the value of her property.
Evidence was presented in regard to the character of the neighborhood and the nature of the business which defendant intended to conduct in the proposed addition. The chancellor refused to find that the neighborhood was exclusively residential; he held that plaintiff's attitude was one of apprehension and her prayer for injunctive relief premature; hence the court below denied the application.
As we recently said in Commonwealth v. Katz,
The present record discloses apparently reasonable grounds for refusing a preliminary injunction, and, in accordance with the above-stated rule, we will not enter on a consideration of the merits of the case at this time.
The decree is affirmed at the cost of appellant. *Page 45
Hoffman v. Johnstown & Somerset Railway Co. ( 1932 )
Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Transportation Co. ( 1956 )
Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com. ( 1938 )
Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com. ( 1938 )
Philadelphia Record Co. v. Curtis-Martin Newspapers, Inc. ( 1931 )
Summit Township v. Fennell ( 1958 )
Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser ( 1956 )
Berberian v. Lancaster Osteopathic Hospital Ass'n ( 1959 )
Kaufman v. Philadelphia ( 1928 )
Hazleton v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. ( 1940 )