Legal Opinion

Little v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 20, 1935PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaRKSON, J.

We have read the record and briefs of the litigants with care. It is well settled in this jurisdiction, and the matter stated in Seip v. Wright, 173 N. C., 14 (15-16), as follows: “Where it will not harm the defendant to continue the injunction, and may cause great injury to the plaintiff, if it is dissolved, the court generally will restrain the party until the hearing. McCorkle v. Brem, 76 N. C., 407; where serious questions were raised, Harrington v. Rawls, 131 N. C., 40; or where reasonably necessary to protect plaintiff’s rights, Heilig v. Stokes, 63 N. C., 612. The Court said, by…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Heilig and Others v. . Stokes and PenningtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
  2. Hyatt v. Dehart.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Harrington v. Rawls.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
  4. Tise v. . Whitaker-Harvey Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  5. Seip v. . WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Lance v. CogdillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. Huskins v. Yancey HospitalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Huskins v. Yancey Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Roberts v. Town of CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. Hinkle v. . ScottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API