From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White et al. v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 27, 1935
179 A. 434 (Pa. 1935)

Opinion

January 21, 1935.

May 27, 1935.

Before SIMPSON, KEPHART, SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW and LINN, JJ.

Appeal, No. 72, Jan. T., 1935, by defendant, from decree of C. P. Montgomery Co., April T., 1933, No. 8, in case of Raymond A. White et al. v. Atlantic Refining Company. Proceedings remanded to the court below for further hearing.

Bill in equity. Before KNIGHT, P. J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Decree entered enjoining erection of proposed gasoline filling station. Appeal by defendant allowed to Supreme Court. Decree affirmed. Reargument allowed.

Theodore Lane Bean, for appellant.

Samuel D. Conver, for appellees.


Argued January 21, 1935; reargued May 13, 1935.


We are satisfied upon an inspection of the premises that since Judge KNIGHT made his decree December 8, 1933, there is merit in the contention that there has been an encroachment of business within the 600-foot radius found to be exclusively residential. We accordingly direct the record to be returned to the court below and the proceedings remanded for a rehearing in the light of the changes of conditions which have taken place since the hearing of the cause before the chancellor.


Summaries of

White et al. v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
May 27, 1935
179 A. 434 (Pa. 1935)
Case details for

White et al. v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Case Details

Full title:White et al. v. Atlantic Refining Company, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: May 27, 1935

Citations

179 A. 434 (Pa. 1935)
179 A. 434

Citing Cases

White v. Old York Road Country Club

When this litigation came before the court in White v. Old York Road Club, 318 Pa. 346, we affirmed the…

Essick v. Shillam

In Burke et al. v. Hollinger, 296 Pa. 510, 520, it was said: "It is apparent that when a residential district…