Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1913

Hoffman v. Howell

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided June 27, 1913 · Brown, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

242 Pa. 112; 88 A. 877; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 847

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Rubin v. Bailey (Pa. 1960)
American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co. v. Flynn (Pa. 1960)
Blanton v. Paul (Pa. 1960)
Aldrich v. Geahry (Pa. 1948)
Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com. (Pa. 1938)
Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com. (Pa. 1938)
Philadelphia Record Co. v. Curtis-Martin Newspapers, Inc. (Pa. 1931)
Howard v. Goodnough (Pa. 1928)
Lesher v. Thomas S. Gassner Co. (Pa. 1925)
Stefanich v. Beaver Falls (Pa. Super. Ct. 1921)
Brock v. Atlantic Refining Co. (Pa. 1920)
Davis v. Porch Bros. (Pa. 1920)
Beetem v. Carlisle Light, Heat & Power Co. (Pa. 1919)
City Ice Co. v. Easton Merchants' Ice Co. (Pa. 1919)
Holden v. Llewellyn (Pa. 1918)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

This appeal is from an order dissolving a preliminary injunction restraining the defendant from drilling oil *114or gas wells on his own land. The injunction was granted on averments in the bill and injunction affidavit, some of which were not supported by proof at the hearing and others give rise to questions that cannot be properly considered until after final hearing and decree. Our established practice on appeals from the awarding or refusing of preliminary injunctions is not to consider the merits of the case, but only to determine whether under the facts presented in the Common Pleas there was reasonable ground for the action of the court.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.