Lowe v. Board of Commissioners

70 N.C. 532
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 5, 1874·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Bysum, J.

The injunctive relief, sought in this action, is not auxiliary to another and main relief, but is the main relief itself, and the object of the action, therefore, the dissolution of the injunction would be equivalent to a dismissal of the action. In such cases where a reasonable doubt exists in the mind of the Court, whether the equity of the complaint is sufficiently negatived by the answer, the Court will not dissolve the injunction, but continue to the hearing. Much must depend upon the sound discretion of the Court to whom the question of dissolution is preferred. James v. Lemley, 2 Ired. Eq. 278; Miller v. Washburne, 3 Ired. Eq. 161. In this case the answer does not remove such reasonable doubt, created by the complaint and affidavit, without which removal, according to the principles of this Court, the injunction ought not to be dissolved before the hearing. The novel and important questions raised by the pleadings and ably discussed before ns, do not come up for decision now.

Per CueiaM. Judgment affirmed.

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

Lowe v. Board of Commissioners, 70 N.C. 532 (N.C. 1874).

70 N.C. 532 (Lowe v. Board of Commissioners) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sanders v. Rocky Mount Insurance & Realty Co.
110 S.E. 597 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
State v. . Scott
109 S.E. 789 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Zeiger v. . Stephenson
69 S.E. 611 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Cobb v. Clegg.
49 S.E. 80 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Solomon v. Wilmington Sewerage Co.
45 S.E. 536 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Vickers v. Durham.
44 S.E. 685 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Jones v. . Buxton
28 S.E. 545 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Marshall v. Commissioners of Stanly County
89 N.C. 103 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)