Ragland v. Kellogg

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ragland v. Kellogg

107 S.E.2d 69, 249 N.C. 646, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 381

DecidedFebruary 25, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E.2d 69 (Ragland v. Kellogg) 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

Ragland v. Kellogg, 107 S.E.2d 69, 249 N.C. 646, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 381 (N.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The only question now presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to support Judge Morris’ findings of fact and interlocutory order. The record requires an affirmative answer.

It is noted that plaintiffs, as required by Judge Morris, filed a $1,000.00 bond, affording protection to defendants in the event it is determined on final hearing that the restraining order pendente lite [647]*647was improvidently entered and that defendants suffered damages on account thereof.

Whether defendants’ demurrer to amended complaint was properly overruled is not presented. No petition for certiorari was filed. Rule 4(a), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 242 N.C. 766. Even so, since plaintiffs’ right to the restraining order pendente lite is based upon the facts alleged in their amended complaint, it may be implied that this 'Court is of opinion that defendants’ said demurrer was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The only question now presented is whether the evidence was sufficient to support Judge Morris’ findings of fact and interlocutory order. The record requires an affirmative answer.

It is noted that plaintiffs, as required by Judge Morris, filed a $1,000.00 bond, affording protection to defendants in the event it is determined on final hearing that the restraining order pendente lite [647]*647was improvidently entered and that defendants suffered damages on account thereof.

Whether defendants’ demurrer to amended complaint was properly overruled is not presented. No petition for certiorari was filed. Rule 4(a), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 242 N.C. 766. Even so, since plaintiffs’ right to the restraining order pendente lite is based upon the facts alleged in their amended complaint, it may be implied that this 'Court is of opinion that defendants’ said demurrer was properly overruled.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E.2d 69, 249 N.C. 646, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 381, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragland-v-kellogg-nc-1959.