Cullins v. North Carolina State College of Agriculture & Engineering
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Pee CueiaM.
The only exception and assignment of error made by defendant was to the order by the court below continuing the restraining order to the hearing of the case. In this we can see no error. Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N. C., at p. 34; Realty Co. v. Barnes, 197 N. C., 6; Scott v. Gillis, 197 N. C., 223; Land Co. v. Cole, 197 N. C., 452.
In Brinkley v. Norman, 190 N. C., 851, it is said: “This appeal is controlled by the principle announced in Seip v. Wright, 173 N. C., 14, and in many other cases: ‘Where it will not harm the defendant to continue the injunction and may cause great injury to…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Scott v. . GillisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Seip v. . WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Hurwitz v. Carolina Sand & Gravel Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Brinkley v. . NormanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- New Hope Realty Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Huskins v. Yancey HospitalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953