
    Salus et al. v. Lawrence, Secretary of Commonwealth., et al., Appellants.
    
      Argued December 28, 1938.
    Before Kephaet, C. J., Schaefer, Linn, Stern and Barnes, JJ.
    
      Lemuel B. Schofield and J ames Todaro, Deputy Attorney General, with them Guy K. Bard, Attorney General, and J. Dress Pannell, for appellants.
    
      Marshall E. Morgan, with him Earl V. Compton, for appellees.
    December 31, 1938:
   Per Curiam,

The five Judges who heard these appeals all agree that they 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.”

Appeals 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.
     