From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lowe v. Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1874
70 N.C. 532 (N.C. 1874)

Opinion

(January Term, 1874.)

When the dissolution of an injunction would be equivalent to a dismissal of the action, if a reasonable doubt exists in the mind of the Court, whether the equity of the complaint be sufficiently negatived by the answer, the Court will not dissolve the injunction but continue it to the hearing.

CIVIL ACTION, motion to dissolve an injunction, heard by his Honor, Cloud, J., at the Spring Term, 1873, of DAVIDSON Superior Court.

McCorkle for appellants.

Bailey contra.


Upon the application of the plaintiffs to his Honor, Judge Cloud, at Chambers, an injunction issued to defendants on the 22d of April, 1873, restraining them from selling certain lots belonging to the county, situate in the town of Lexington, and which the Board had ordered to be sold for certain purposes. (533)

The defendants, after due notice, moved, on the 5th of May following, to vacate the order of injunction, which motion his Honor refused, and continued the restraining order to the hearing. From this decision of his Honor, defendants appealed.


The injunctive relief, sought in this action, is not auxiliary to another and main relief, but is the main relief itself, and the object of the action, therefore, the dissolution of the injunction would be equivalent to a dismissal of the action. In such cases where a reasonable doubt exists in the mind of the Court, whether the equity of the complaint is sufficiently negatived by the answer, the Court will not dissolve the injunction, but continue to the hearing. Much must depend upon the sound discretion of the Court to whom the question of dissolution is preferred. James v. Lemley, 37 N.C. 278; Miller v. Washburne, 38 N.C. 161. In this case the answer does not remove such reasonable doubt, created by the complaint and affidavit, without which removal, according to the principles of this Court, the injunction ought not to be disolved [dissolved] before the hearing. The novel and important questions raised by the pleadings and ably discussed before us, do not come up for decision now.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Marshall v. Commissioners, 89 N.C. 107; Jones v. Buxton, 121 N.C. 286; Vickers v. Durham, 132 N.C. 882; Solomon v. Sererage Co., 133 N.C. 150; Cobb v. Clegg, 137 N.C. 159; Zeiger v. Stephenson, 153 N.C. 530; S. v. Scott, 182 N.C. 882; Sanders v. Ins. Co., 183 N.C. 67.


Summaries of

Lowe v. Commissioners

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1874
70 N.C. 532 (N.C. 1874)
Case details for

Lowe v. Commissioners

Case Details

Full title:C. F. LOWE AND WIFE AND OTHERS v. THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF DAVIDSON…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1874

Citations

70 N.C. 532 (N.C. 1874)

Citing Cases

Marshall v. Commissioners

When the injunctive relief sought is not merely auxiliary to the principal relief demanded in the action, but…

Zeiger v. Stephenson

The principles we have attempted to state are, we think, well supported by the authorities (530) upon this…