Legal Opinion

M. Blatt Company v. Southwell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 22, 1963No. 610PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

Although defendant’s motion is made under G.S. 1-497 for judgment against plaintiff and the surety on its undertaking or bond, the undertaking or bond is not in the record. Whether for $2,500.00 or $500.00, it is assumed the bond was drafted in accordance with G.S. 1-496. Defendant’s motion for judgment thereon alleges the bond was “conditioned that said plaintiff would pay to the party enjoined such damages as he might sustain by reason of said injunction if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto.”

Section 341 of the Code of 1883 as amended by Chapter 251…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Scott v. FrankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1903
  2. Nansemond Timber Co. v. RountreeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  3. St. Joseph & Elkhart Power Co. v. GrahamIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Janssen v. ShownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931
  5. Raleigh & Western Railway Co. v. Glendon & Gulf Mining & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Pinehurst, Inc. v. O'Leary Bros. Realty, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Leonard E. Warner, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. Industrial Innovators, Inc. v. Myrick-White, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  4. Oakwood Manor, Inc. v. EckDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1978
  5. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. BellNevada Supreme Court · 1979

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

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

Powered by the Exa API