Wilson v. . Featherstone

27 S.E. 121, 120 N.C. 449
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 S.E. 121 (Wilson v. . Featherstone) 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
Wilson v. . Featherstone, 27 S.E. 121, 120 N.C. 449 (N.C. 1897).

Opinion

Eaiegloth, O. J.:

There are two reasons why an injunc - tion should not have been granted in this case:

1. No written undertaking was written or tendered as required. The Code, Section 341; Miller v. Parker, 73 N. C., 58; James v. Withers, 114 N. C., 474.

2. There is no allegation of defendant’s insolvency; on the contrary, the plaintiffs’ affidavit admits that the defendants “are wealthy and amply able to respond in damages for any wrong done this affiant.” Hettrick v. Page, 82 N. C., 65; McNamee v. Alexander, 109 N. C., 242; Land Co. v. Webb, 117 N. C., 478.

Reversed.

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

Related

Doggett Lumber Co. v. Conrades
143 S.E. 138 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)
Rope Co. v. . Aluminum Co.
81 S.E. 771 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Tucker & Carter Rope Co. v. Southern Aluminum Co.
165 N.C. 572 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Forter v. Armstrong.
43 S.E. 542 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 S.E. 121, 120 N.C. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-featherstone-nc-1897.