Opinion
October 11, 1955.
November 14, 1955.
Appeals — Scope of review — Preliminary injunction.
1. On an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction, the appellate court does not go into the merits of the controversy but determines only whether under the facts before the court below there were reasonable grounds for its action; unless it is plain that no such grounds existed or the record reveals palpable legal error, the decree will be affirmed. [183-4]
Municipalities — Public authorities — Operation of water works — Sale of bonds — Validity — Equity — Preliminary injunction — Preservation of status quo.
2. Where it appeared that the defendant Authority, which was operating the city waterworks, suddenly put out a bond issue of $3,450,000 to pay off outstanding bonds of $2,039,000 and modernize the existing plant, which drew its water from the Allegheny River; that defendant knew that plaintiff city was negotiating with the county water Authority for the sale of the water works to it and the acquisition of a water supply from the latter's dam; and that this plan contemplated the city recapturing the water works from the defendant Authority and selling it to the county authority, it was Held that the court below had properly preliminarily enjoined the defendant from disbursing the funds received from the sale of the bonds in order to preserve the status quo pending the plaintiff's determination whether the county Authority's proposal to purchase the water works was its best proposal. [183-4]
Argued October 11, 1955. Before STERN, C. J., STEARNE, JONES, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 4, March T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, No. 2727, in case of City of New Kensington v. Municipal Authority of the City of New Kensington. Decree affirmed.
Same case in court below: 3 Pa. D. C.2d 784.
Equity.
Decree entered granting preliminary objection, opinion by BAUER, J., defendant appealed.
Carl E. Glock, with him Gilbert J. Helwig, Albert S. Yoder, Robert D. McVey, Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, and Yoder McVey, for appellant.
James Gregg, with him Anthony J. Bonadio and Vincent R. Smith, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction against the defendant-appellant. The injunction was issued after the court had taken testimony of both parties. This is an unedifying example of each of two bodies claiming to represent the people in the same geographical subdivision. Under the law our review is very much limited, being confined to whether, under the facts before the court below, there were reasonable grounds for its action: Roth v. Columbia Distributing Company, 371 Pa. 297, 305, 89 A.2d 825.
The court's action fully satisfies the foregoing rule, and we accordingly affirm the decree of the court below on the opinion of Judge BAUER, reported at 3 Pa. D. C.2d 784; costs to abide the event.
Due to the importance of the cause, it is further ordered that the court below hold final hearing and render a decision thereon within sixty days from the date of filing of this opinion.