O'Donnell v. Lehigh Navigation Coal Co.
O’Donnell Et Al. v. Lehigh Navigation Coal Company, Appellant
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, The court below did not err in decreeing a mandatory injunction to restore the track pending final disposition of the case. See Jones v. Securities Commission, 298 U. S. 1, 16 ;
Easton Passenger Ry. Co. v. Easton, 133 Pa. 505, 521 ;
Clark v. Martin, 49 Pa. 289 ;
Cooke v. Boynton, 135 Pa. 102 ;
Whiteman v. Fayette Fuel-Gas Co., 139 Pa. 492 . “Equity . . . will not allow itself to *370 be baffled by a wrongful change while its aid is being invoked. The modern cases . . . have established the rule that the status quo which will be preserved . . . is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy, and [it] will not permit a wrongdoer to shelter himself behind a suddenly . . . changed status . . . ”:
Fredericks v. Huber, 180 Pa. 572 . While this was said in another case on different facts it is applicable here.
Decree affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.