In Re the Application for Reassignment of Albright

Supreme Court of North Carolina

In Re the Application for Reassignment of Albright

180 S.E.2d 798, 278 N.C. 664, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 1020

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 12, 1971

Docket81

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 180 S.E.2d 798 (In Re the Application for Reassignment of Albright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re the Application for Reassignment of Albright, 180 S.E.2d 798, 278 N.C. 664, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 1020 (N.C. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

HIGGINS, Justice.

To issue or to refuse an interlocutory injunction is usually a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter involved until a trial can be had on the merits. Huskins v. Hospital, 23 8 N.C. 357, 78 S.E. 2d 116. The issuing court does not decide the case, but after weighing the equities, the advantages and disadvantages to the parties, determines, in the exercise of its sound discretion, whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted or refused. Its primary function is to prevent irreparable injury. Finance Company v. Jordan, 259 N.C. 127, 129 S.E. 2d 882.

In passing on the validity of an interlocutory injunction the appellate court is not bound by the findings of fact made by the issuing court, but may review the evidence and make its own findings. However, where, as in this case, the record does not contain the evidence introduced before the trial court, the appellate court will presume the evidence supported the findings. For the purpose of the appeal, the findings are deemed conclusive.

The trial court’s findings, in much detail, appear in the statement of facts. When tested by the applicable rules, they are sufficient to support Judge Martin’s order. However, neither the findings of fact nor the conclusions of law of the trial court are binding upon, or are to be considered, by the superior court on the final hearing. Huskins v. Hospital, supra; Board of Elders v. Jones, 273 N.C. 174, 159 S.E. 2d 545.

Our consideration is confined to the legal validity of Judge Martin’s order. Discussion of other issues, 'which may or may *670 not be raised at the final hearing, is neither required nor pertinent at this stage.

For the reasons stated we conclude that the restraining order was properly continued to the hearing.

Affirmed.

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

HIGGINS, Justice.

To issue or to refuse an interlocutory injunction is usually a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo of the subject matter involved until a trial can be had on the merits. Huskins v. Hospital, 23 8 N.C. 357, 78 S.E. 2d 116. The issuing court does not decide the case, but after weighing the equities, the advantages and disadvantages to the parties, determines, in the exercise of its sound discretion, whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted or refused. Its primary function is to prevent irreparable injury. Finance Company v. Jordan, 259 N.C. 127, 129 S.E. 2d 882.

In passing on the validity of an interlocutory injunction the appellate court is not bound by the findings of fact made by the issuing court, but may review the evidence and make its own findings. However, where, as in this case, the record does not contain the evidence introduced before the trial court, the appellate court will presume the evidence supported the findings. For the purpose of the appeal, the findings are deemed conclusive.

The trial court’s findings, in much detail, appear in the statement of facts. When tested by the applicable rules, they are sufficient to support Judge Martin’s order. However, neither the findings of fact nor the conclusions of law of the trial court are binding upon, or are to be considered, by the superior court on the final hearing. Huskins v. Hospital, supra; Board of Elders v. Jones, 273 N.C. 174, 159 S.E. 2d 545.

Our consideration is confined to the legal validity of Judge Martin’s order. Discussion of other issues, 'which may or may *670 not be raised at the final hearing, is neither required nor pertinent at this stage.

For the reasons stated we conclude that the restraining order was properly continued to the hearing.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E.2d 798, 278 N.C. 664, 1971 N.C. LEXIS 1020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-application-for-reassignment-of-albright-nc-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack