Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897

Wilson v. . Featherstone

Wilson v. . Featherstone
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided February 5, 1897 · Eaiegloth
27 S.E. 121; 120 N.C. 449 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Merrimon da Merrimon, for plaintiff., Messrs. Jones do Barnard and T. H. Cobb, for defendants (appellants).

Wilson v. . Featherstone

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.