Salus v. Lawrence, SEC. of Com.

Per Curiam, The five Judges who heard this appeal all agree that it must be dismissed. We have held in a number of cases that: “While the granting or refusal of a preliminary injunction is the subject of appeal, yet in such case we refrain from a discussion of the merits of the litigation and merely determine whether, under the facts presented in the court below, there was a reasonable ground for its action”:

Holden v. Llewellyn et al., 262 Pa. 400 , at pp. 402 and 403.

* The questions involved come from the Election Code of June 3, 1937, P. L. 1333, and we find that the court below had “reasonable ground for its action.”

Appeal dismissed.

* See also:

Gemmell et al. v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146, 151 ;

Sunbury Boro. v. Sunbury & S. R. Co., 241 Pa. 357, 359 ;

Hoffman v. Howell, 242 Pa. 112, 114 ;

Deal v. Erie Coal & Coke Co., 246 Pa. 552, 555 ;

Brock v. Atlantic Refining Co., 268 Pa. 231, 233 ;

Casinghead Gas Co. v. Osborn, 269 Pa. 395, 397 ;

Com. v. Katz, 281 Pa. 287, 288 ;

Lesher v. Gassner Co., 285 Pa. 43, 44 ;

Howard v. Goodnough et al., 292 Pa. 547, 550 ;

Hoffman v. J. & S. Ry. Co. et al., 309 Pa. 183 ;

Harrisburg Dairies, Inc., v. Eisaman et al., 328 Pa. 195, 197 .