Lineberger v. Ruby Cotton Mills, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtClaeKsoN, J.
“Injunction has been styled the ‘strong arm’ of equity to be used only to prevent irreparable injury,” etc. See Hurwitz v. Sand Co., 189 N. C., at p. 4.
It is contended by defendant: “It may be that appellant (plaintiff) suffers as complained of, which is denied, but the appellee denies that it has caused or contributed to the inconvenience or injury of appellant. If the appellant has suffered the injury alleged, it is contended that the overwhelming proof is that the cause for same is not to be attributed to any act of the appellee or its septic tank, but to other and independent causes not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cameron v. State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Leaksville Woolen Mills v. Spray Water Power & Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
3Cited by4 opinions
- Woolen Mills v. . Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Roebuck v. . CarsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Electrical Research Products, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Talking Pictures Corp. v. . Elect. Research ProductsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931