Wilson v. . Featherstone
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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
27 S.E. 121, 120 N.C. 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-featherstone-nc-1897.