Brinkley v. . Norman
129 S.E. 145, 190 N.C. 851
Opinion
This appeal is controlled by the principle announced in Seip v. Wright, 178 N. C., 14, and in many other cases: “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 final hearing.”
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brinkley v. . Norman, 129 S.E. 145, 190 N.C. 851 (N.C. 1925).
129 S.E. 145 (Brinkley v. . Norman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Huskins v. Yancey Hospital, Inc.
78 S.E.2d 116 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Huskins v. Yancey Hospital
78 S.E.2d 116 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Ferebee v. . Thomason
171 S.E. 64 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Holder v. Home Mortgage Co.
170 S.E. 630 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)
Cullins v. . State College
151 S.E. 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Cullins v. North Carolina State College of Agriculture & Engineering
198 N.C. 337 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)