Joseph J. Heintz, Jr., and Pauline Heintz, Appellants v. Village Realty, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; Gallagher and Mcmanus, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation; and Centralia Mining Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation., 277 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir. 1960)

Federal Circuits, 3rd Cir. (May 03, 1960)

Docket number: 13093

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/heintz-gallagher-mcmanus-centralia-36678229
Id. vLex: VLEX-36678229

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Joe G. Martinez, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 302 F.2d 279 (5th Cir. 1962)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - Arturo Rodriguez, Appellant, v. United States of America, Appellee., 284 F.2d 863 (5th Cir. 1960)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moore-Mccormack Lines, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 370 F.2d 430 (2nd Cir. 1966)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Montauk Oil Transportation Corp., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sonat Marine, Inc., and Getty Refining and Marketing Company, Defendants, Sonat Marine, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 871 F.2d 1169 (2nd Cir. 1989)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - Metallgesellschaft A.G., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M/V Capitan Constante and Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales, Defendants-Appellees., 790 F.2d 280 (2nd Cir. 1986)

See all citations to this document

Text:

William E. Taylor, Jr., Wilmington, Del., for appellants.

Arthur J. Sullivan, E. Dickinson Griffenberg, Wilmington, Del. (Killoran & Van Brunt, Wilmington, Del., Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, Del. on the brief), for appellees.

Before McLAUGHLIN, STALEY and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this diversity action plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions against defendants constructing a shopping center in Swanwyck, Delaware on the ground that the construction violated certain applicable building restrictions. After the court's refusal to allow a temporary restraint of the construction, both sides moved for summary judgment. In granting the defense motion and denying that of plaintiffs, Chief Judge Wright held that the restrictions urged by appellants were not binding on the land involved. His opinion fully covers the issue and does, we think, soundly and fairly decide it.

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 177 F.Supp. 491.