Waldrop v. . Green

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Waldrop v. . Green

63 N.C. 344

DecidedJanuary 5, 1869

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.C. 344 (Waldrop v. . Green) 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

Waldrop v. . Green, 63 N.C. 344 (N.C. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

PearsoN, C. J.

This case was entered on his docket by the clerk of the Superior Court, according to sec. 400, “ Code of Civil Procedure.” • By sec. 402, it is directed: “The said suits shall be proceeded in and tried under the existing laws and rules applicable thereto.” So we agree with his Honor in his ruling, that the plaintiff had no right to take issue upon the facts set out in the answer, and have such issue *346 submitted to a jury. Before the Court could take any further-action in the cause, we think the motion to dissolve the injunction on bill and answer was properly before the Court for-determination.

We also agree with his Honor, that upon bill and answer the' injunction ought to have been dissolved, indeed we ar& inclined to the opinion that the bill upon its face, has no equity. The injunction was improvidently granted.

Let this be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. Ordered accordingly.

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

PearsoN, C. J.

This case was entered on his docket by the clerk of the Superior Court, according to sec. 400, “ Code of Civil Procedure.” • By sec. 402, it is directed: “The said suits shall be proceeded in and tried under the existing laws and rules applicable thereto.” So we agree with his Honor in his ruling, that the plaintiff had no right to take issue upon the facts set out in the answer, and have such issue *346 submitted to a jury. Before the Court could take any further-action in the cause, we think the motion to dissolve the injunction on bill and answer was properly before the Court for-determination.

We also agree with his Honor, that upon bill and answer the' injunction ought to have been dissolved, indeed we ar& inclined to the opinion that the bill upon its face, has no equity. The injunction was improvidently granted.

Let this be certified, &c.

Per Curiam. Ordered accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.C. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldrop-v-green-nc-1869.