PLEATERS, INCORPORATED v. Kostakes

129 S.E.2d 881, 259 N.C. 131, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 486
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 20, 1963·No. 247·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judge below was not requested to find the facts and he found none. However, the allegations of the verified complaint and affidavit are sufficient to warrant the temporary restraining order and no findings were required. Owen v. DeBruhl Agency, Inc., 241 N.C. 597, 86 S.E. 2d 197.

Ordinarily a temporary restraining order will be continued to the trial if there is probable cause to believe that “plaintiff will be able to maintain his primary equity and there is a reasonable apprehension of irreparable loss unless it remains in force,” or if it appears reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff’s right until the controversy can be determined. Cobb v. Clegg, 137 N.C. 153, 49 S.E. 80.

In this case plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of its right to the final relief it >seeks. In the meantime, defendants should not be permitted to construct the building, the erection of which is the subject of the controversy. Local Finance Company v. Jordan, ante, 127. The order continuing the preliminary injunction is

Affirmed.

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

PLEATERS, INCORPORATED v. Kostakes, 129 S.E.2d 881, 259 N.C. 131, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 486 (N.C. 1963).

129 S.E.2d 881 (PLEATERS, INCORPORATED v. Kostakes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

A.E.P. Industries, Inc. v. McClure
302 S.E.2d 754 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
Hooks v. INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAYS, INCORPARTED
140 S.E.2d 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)