Stancill v. . Joyner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from order rendered by Whedbee, J., at chambers, in Greenville, Pitt County, 26 July, 1912. Civil action beard on return to a temporary restraining order. Tbe restraining order was continued to tbe bearing, and tbe defendant excepted and appealed. Tbe facts are sufficiently stated in tbe opinion of tbe Court by Mr. Justice Iloke.
1Opinion of the CourtHoke, J.
In Tise v. Whitaker, 144 N. C., 510, tbe Court said: “It is tbe rule witb us tbat in actions of tbis character, tbe main purpose of wbicb is to obtain a permanent injunction, if the- evidence raises serious question as to tbe existence of facts wbicb make for plaintiff’s right, and sufficient to establish it, a preliminary restraining order will be continued to tbe bearing. Hyatt v. DeHart, 140 N. C., 270; Harrington v. Rawls, 131 N. C., 39; Whitaker v. Hill, 96 N. C., 2; Marshall v. Commissioners, 89 N. C., 103.”
The verified, complaint and affidavits on part of plaintiff in the present case…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cobb v. Clegg.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Hyatt v. Dehart.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Marshall v. Commissioners of Stanly CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Harrington v. Rawls.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Whittaker v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
3Cited by7 opinions
- Tise v. . Whitaker-Harvey Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Herndon v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Royster Guano Co. of Virginia, Inc. v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Herndon v. Durham & Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Tobacco Growers Co-Operative Ass'n v. PollockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.