Boushiar v. . Willis

177 S.E. 632, 207 N.C. 511, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 187

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The temporary restraining order was properly continued to the hearing. Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N. C., 32, 135 S. E., 480.

It is the general practice of equity courts, upon proper showing for injunctive relief, to continue the temporary restraining order to the final hearing, when it appears that no harm can come to the respondents from such continuance, and great injury might result to the petitioners from a dissolution of the injunction. Parker Co. v. Bank, 200 N. C., 441, 157 S. E., 419; Thomason v. Swenson, 204 N. C., 759, 169 S. E., 620. “Where it will not harm the defendant to continue the injunction, and may cause great injury to the plaintiff if it is dissolved, the court generally will restrain the party until the hearing” — Walker, J., in Seip v. Wright, 173 N. C., 14, 91 S. E., 359.

This is the only jjoint presented by the appeal.

There is no finding that the prior action is for the same cause, and that they are substantially alike. Indeed, the two are apparently dissimilar. Buchanan v. Milling Co., 200 N. C., 52, 156 S. E., 140.

Affirmed.