Legal Opinion

Norfolk Southern Railroad v. Rapid Transit Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 14, 1928PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStaoy, C. J.

The facts are in dispute; they can be determined only by a jury. A continuous trespass may be enjoined, without an allegation of insolvency. C. S., 844; Kinsland v. Kinsland, 188 N. C., 810, 125 S. E., 625; Cobb v. R. R., 172 N. C., 58, 89 S. E., 807. . And where it can do no harm to grant the injunction, and a refusal is likely to subject one of the parties to further litigation, cost and trouble, the court will ordinarily interfere by orders until the facts can be found and the way made clearer. McCorkle v. Brem, 76 N. C., 407. See, also, D. L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Morristown, U. S., decided…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cobb v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. McCorkle v. . BremSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877
  3. Kinsland v. . KinslandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lance v. CogdillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. Huskins v. Yancey HospitalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Huskins v. Yancey Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Young v. . PittmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  5. New Hope Realty Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3 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