Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.

197 S.E.2d 85, 18 N.C. App. 482, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1911

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 13, 1973

DocketNo. 7323SC261

StatusPublished

This text of 197 S.E.2d 85 (Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulova Watch Co. v. Brand Distributors of North Wilkesboro, Inc., 197 S.E.2d 85, 18 N.C. App. 482, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1911 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

We are of the opinion that defendants’ attempt to appeal from the order allowing the preliminary injunction is premature and we will treat the same as a petition for certiorari which we allow.

Defendants’ sole assignment of error is as follows:

“The Court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction in each of these cases for the reason that the Fair Trade Act is in violation of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina and the Act has probably been repealed by subsequent legislation.”

The constitutionality of the act was not before Judge Kivett when he heard the application for preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court so held in Carbide Corp. v. Davis, 253 N.C. 324, 116 S.E. 2d 792. The cited case also involves1 the “Fair Trade Act.” The trial judge had declined to continue a temporary restraining order until trial on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court quoted with approval from other writings which were to the effect that the constitutionality of an act will not be determined on the question being raised on preliminary motions or interlocutory orders.

Moreover, the act in question was expressly held to be constitutional in Lilly & Co. v. Saunders, 216 N.C. 163, 4 S.E. 2d 528. Though decided by the Supreme Court in 1939, the case continues to be binding on the Court of Appeals and the trial courts of this State.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VAUGHN, Judge.

We are of the opinion that defendants’ attempt to appeal from the order allowing the preliminary injunction is premature and we will treat the same as a petition for certiorari which we allow.

Defendants’ sole assignment of error is as follows:

“The Court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction in each of these cases for the reason that the Fair Trade Act is in violation of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina and the Act has probably been repealed by subsequent legislation.”

The constitutionality of the act was not before Judge Kivett when he heard the application for preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court so held in Carbide Corp. v. Davis, 253 N.C. 324, 116 S.E. 2d 792. The cited case also involves1 the “Fair Trade Act.” The trial judge had declined to continue a temporary restraining order until trial on the grounds that the act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court quoted with approval from other writings which were to the effect that the constitutionality of an act will not be determined on the question being raised on preliminary motions or interlocutory orders.

Moreover, the act in question was expressly held to be constitutional in Lilly & Co. v. Saunders, 216 N.C. 163, 4 S.E. 2d 528. Though decided by the Supreme Court in 1939, the case continues to be binding on the Court of Appeals and the trial courts of this State.

Affirmed.

Judges Brock and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E.2d 85, 18 N.C. App. 482, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulova-watch-co-v-brand-distributors-of-north-wilkesboro-inc-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack