Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Co., 245 Pa. 585 (Pa. 1914)
91 A. 940; 1914 Pa. LEXIS 925
Brown, Cublamj, Elkin, Fell, Moschziskeb, Potter

Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Co.

Opinion of the Court

.Pee CUBlAMj

The decree appealed from was made in the exercise of the chancery powers of the court. It does not deprive the appellant of his right to have his execution satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the personal property of the Majestic Apartment House Company if he has such right. The bond given by the Fidelity Title and Trust Company insures the payment for said property of a sum largely in excess of what will be required to pay the appellant if he has the preference which he *589claims. Whether he has such preference can be determined by the court after due consideration upon final hearing or on distribution of the proceeds of sale made by the receiver. We have not been persuaded that we should depart from the rule as to non-interference with preliminary injunctions, and the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to any rights of the appellant, the costs to be disposed of on final hearing.

Reference

Full Case Name
Simon v. Majestic Apartment House Company
Status
Published
Syllabus
Equity — Equity practice — Conflicting lien claims — Execution— Preliminary injunction — Appeals—Supreme Court. • A bill in equity to foreclose a corporation mortgage on a hotel property was filed by the mortgagee trustee. On motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain a judgment creditor from proceeding with executions levied against the personal property, it appeared that the judgments were subsequent to the mortgage, but it was claimed by the holders thereof that the mortgage did not cover the furniture and fixtures. The court granted a preliminary injunction restraining further proceedings under the judgments mentioned, the decree preserving the creditor’s right to have his execution satisfied out of the proceeds of the sale of the personal property of the hotel, if he had such a right. The bond given insured the payment for said property of' a sum largely in excess of what would be required to pay the judgment creditor if he had the preference which he claimed. Held, that the preliminary injunction ghould not be disturbed.