Leaksville Woolen Mills v. Spray Water Power & Land Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendants from Sarding, J., at chambers, 16 January,, 1922, from RockiNGHAM. Application for mandatory injunction. There was evidence tending-to show the facts to be as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of 1% acres-of land in the unincorporated town of Spray, on which its mill is-situated. Its premises, except where the driveway connects with the public road, are surrounded by the lands of the water power and land, compoany and allied corporations.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendants from Sarding, J., at chambers, 16 January,, 1922, from RockiNGHAM. Application for mandatory injunction. There was evidence tending-to show the facts to be as follows: Plaintiff is the owner of 1% acres-of land in the unincorporated town of Spray, on which its mill is-situated. Its premises, except where the driveway connects with the public road, are surrounded by the lands of the water power and land, compoany and allied corporations. Plaintiff was incorporated and began, manufacturing woolen products upon its premises about 1881, and in 1893 acquired certain water…
1Opinion of the CourtAdamis, J.
By application for a mandatory injunction the plaintiff seeks relief from the defendants’ alleged invasion of its proprietary rights. In the decree his Honor did not incorporate a formal finding of the facts, possibly because as to questions of fact this court, in matters purely equitable, may examine the evidence and form its own conclusion. "We must, therefore, consider the affidavits and the record evidence presented by the parties and determine therefrom whether the plaintiff is equitably entitled to the desired relief.
"With reference to their nature injunctions are classified as…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Wheelock v. . NoonanNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Hodgkins v. FarringtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- Porter v. Mack Manufacturing Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Salisbury v. AndrewsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Avery v. N. Y. C. & H. R. RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Clinard v. LambethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Kinston Tobacco Board of Trade, Inc. v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Lineberger v. Ruby Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Jolliff v. WinslowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- Hamlet Hospital v. Joint Committee on StandardizationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952