Brown v. Aydlett
193 N.C. 832
Opinion
It appearing tbat a serious controversy exists between tbe parties, and tbat no barm can result from continuing tbe restraining order to tbe bearing, while a contrary ruling might work serious injury to tbe plaintiffs, we are of opinion tbat under authority of Wentz v. Land Co., ante, 32, and cases there cited, tbe restraining order should have been continued to tbe final bearing.
Error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brown v. Aydlett, 193 N.C. 832 (N.C. 1927).
193 N.C. 832 (Brown v. Aydlett) — 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)
Warren v. . Bourne
144 S.E. 541 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)