Wilson v. . Featherstone

27 S.E. 121, 120 N.C. 449
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1897·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

27 S.E. 121 (Wilson v. . Featherstone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)