Legal Opinion

Roebuck v. . Carson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 2, 1929PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The judge dissolved the restraining order, but found no facts. It does not appear that either party requested a finding of facts. In such cases the determinative principle of law is thus stated in Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N. C., 32. “In injunction proceedings this Court has the power to find and review the findings of fact on appeal, but the burden is on the appellant to assign and show error, and there is a presumption that the judgment and proceedings in the court below are correct.” Angelo v. Winston-Salem, 193 N. C., 207, 136 S. E., 489; Lineberger v. Cotton Mills, 196 N. C., 506, 146 S.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Wentz v. Piedmont Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Angelo v. City of Winston-SalemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Lineberger v. Ruby Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. . ChaseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Young v. . McDonaldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API