Trexler v. . Newsom

88 N.C. 13
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1883·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Ruffin, J.

Besides the express provision of the statute (C. C. P., § 190) that an injunction can only be granted at the commencement of the action, or sometime thereafter, there are several adjudications directly in point and fully sustaining the ruling of the judge. Patrick v. Joyner, 63 N. C., 573; McArthur v. McEachin, 64 N. C., 72; Hirsh v. Whitehead, 65 N. C., 516.

There are several reasons why we cannot adopt the suggestion of counsel and treat this proceeding as a motion in the cause, and amongst them the insuperable one growing out of the fact that there are two judgments, and therefore two distinct causes pending and but one proceeding, and we cannot tell to which it should be applied.

*15 In the opinion of this court the injunction was properly refused, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

No Error'. Affirmed.

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

Trexler v. . Newsom, 88 N.C. 13 (N.C. 1883).

88 N.C. 13 (Trexler v. . Newsom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horne v. Commissioners of Cumberland County
29 S.E. 581 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Grant v. . Edwards
90 N.C. 31 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1884)