
    Brock v. Atlantic Refining Co., Appellant.
    
      Appeals — Equity—Preliminary injunction — Review.
    On an appeal from a decree granting or refusing a preliminary injunction, the appellate court looks only to see if there were apparently reasonable grounds for the court’s action. The decree will be sustained if such grounds appear. On appeal from the final decree all questions involved will be open for consideration.
    
      Argued May 18, 1920.
    Appeal, No. 49, Jan. T., 1921, by defendant, from decree of C. P. No. 3, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1919, No. 6544, continuing preliminary injunction, in case of Mary L. T. Brock v. Atlantic Refining Co.
    Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Bill in equity for injunction to restrain violation of building restriction. Before Ferguson, J.
    The bill averred that complainant is owner of 1417 Spruce street in the City of Philadelphia; that defendant is owner of 1415 Spruce street in said city; that by deed dated June 11, 1838, one John McCrea became owner of premises 1413-15-17 Spruce street and by deed dated May 20, 1839, duly recorded, he conveyed 1415 Spruce street to Philip Physick subject to the restriction: “under and subject nevertheless to the following express condition and restriction, that is to say, that no building or part of a building or other obstruction shall ever at any time hereafter be built or erected upon the hereby granted lot of ground north of the present line of the building thereon erected, except the fences and privies as the same are now erected on the extreme northern line of the said lot.”
    The bill averred that defendant was constructing a large building on lots 1401 to 1413 Spruce street, and was encroaching on her lot in violation of the covenant in the deed.
    The court awarded a preliminary injunction, which it subsequently continued until final hearing. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned, among others, was decree, quoting it.
    
      Francis Skunk Brown, with him Yale L. Schekter and Ira Jeioell Williams, for appellant.
    
      Owen J. Roberts, for appellee.
    
      June 26, 1920:
   Per Curiam,

Our examination of the record brought up on this appeal has satisfied us that there was reasonable ground for the action of the court below in awarding the injunction. We now decide nothing more. The case is clearly within the rule that, on an appeal from a decree granting or refusing a preliminary injunction, we look only to see if there were apparently reasonable grounds for the court’s action. On an appeal taken from a final decree all questions involved are open for consideration: Gemmell et ah v. Fox et al., 241 Pa. 146; Hoffman v. Howell, 242 Pa. 112; Deal v. Erie Coal & Coke Company, 246 Pa. 552; Holden v. Llewellyn, 262 Pa. 400.

Appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.  