Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia, Sept. T., 1972, No. 2481, in case of Liberty Corporation et al. v. Domenic D'Amico et al.
Michael J. Pepe, Jr., for appellants.
Michael H. Egnal, with him John David Egnal, and Egnal and Egnal, P. A., for appellees.
Jones, C. J., Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Pomeroy.
This controversy originated with a complaint in equity for an injunction filed on September 20, 1972 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. It sought to restrain appellants from congregating in the public streets of the City of Philadelphia at the points where Bath Street and Richmond Street intersect with Orthodox Street. It was alleged in the complaint that the congregating at this location prevented the use of Orthodox Street, and thus deprived plaintiffs of the only means of ingress and egress to their property. Affidavits attached to the complaint established that a complete shut-down of plaintiff's plant was threatened as a result of defendants' actions. On the same day the complaint was filed, the lower court entered the following ex parte decree:
"And Now, to wit, this 20th day of September, 1972, the plaintiffs having filed Affidavits that immediate and irreparable loss and damage will result to them before the matter can be heard on motion, upon consideration
of the complaint and the injunction affidavits filed therewith, it is Ordered and Decreed, That, upon security being entered by the plaintiffs, or any one of them, in the sum of $100.
"The defendants are enjoined and restrained preliminarily from doing any act, or advocating any act, of any kind whatsoever, which in any manner obstructs or impedes the free use of Orthodox Street from Richmond Street to the Delaware River, or in any manner whatsoever, impedes, obstructs or interferes with the ingress or egress of motor vehicles to and from the plants of the plaintiffs." The court further ordered that a hearing be held on September 25, 1972 on plaintiff's "motion to continue the injunction".
On September 25, 1972, following a hearing at which all parties were represented, the court entered a decree continuing the ex parte decree of September 20th. A timely appeal was taken to this Court. * Appellants (defendants) challenge the issuance of an injunction on three grounds, which will be considered seriatim.
First, appellants contend that the granting of the ex parte injunction of September 20, 1972 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Pa. R. C. P. 1531(a) in that appellants received no notice of appellees' complaint, nor was there any allegation in the complaint or supporting affidavits, nor any finding by the court that irreparable injury would be sustained before notice could be given. Rule 1531(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of ...