State on Rel. Martin v. . Sloan .

69 N.C. 128
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 69 N.C. 128 (State on Rel. Martin v. . Sloan .) 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
State on Rel. Martin v. . Sloan ., 69 N.C. 128 (N.C. 1873).

Opinion

Reade, J.

It was stated at the Bar that the Wilmington, Charlotte and Rutherford Railroad having been sold, neither party has any interest in the case except as to cost. When that is the case, we are not in the habit of deciding the case. After the emancipation of the slaves we declined to try any case involving title to a slave. And we put the cases off the docket. Suppose parties at the beginning of a suit and in the pleadings were to admit that they had no rights involved, but that they would carry on the suit to see which could make the other pay costs, of course we would not try it. Upon the supposition, however, that there is in this case some substantial right to be litigated, we have no hesitation in saying that the granting the injunction and the appointment of a receiver were i mprovident. The affidavit *129 ■of Fremont is wholly insufficient. He swears that what he has stated in the complaint as of his own knowledge is true, «and what he has stated not of his own knowledge he believes to be true, whereas he has stated nothing at all, not being one of the plaintiffs.

And again, the bond for the injunction, $5,000, and the •bond of the. receiver, $10,000, were palpably insufficient. There were probably several hundred thousand dollars involved. .

There is error in the orders appealed from. Let this be «certified.

Per Curiam. Order reversed.

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

Related

State v. Daw
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2024
Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm.
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2021
In Re Burnett
36 S.E.2d 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
In re Burnett ex rel. Finburg
36 S.E.2d 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
Hockoday v. . Lawrence
72 S.E. 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Moores v. Moores
59 P. 327 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1899)
Hasty v. . Funderburk
89 N.C. 93 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
State v. Atlantic & North Carolina Railroad
77 N.C. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1877)
Gray v. . R. R.
77 N.C. 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1877)
Hinton v. . Deans
75 N.C. 18 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
State v. Richmond & Danville Railroad
74 N.C. 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
State v. . R. R.
74 N.C. 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 N.C. 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-on-rel-martin-v-sloan-nc-1873.