Camel City Coach Co v. Griffin, (No. 363.)
| Decision Date | 23 January 1929 |
| Docket Number | (No. 363.) |
| Citation | 196 N.C. 559,146 S.E. 203 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | CAMEL CITY COACH CO. v. GRIFFIN. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; C. C. Lyon, Emergency Judge.
Action by the Camel City Coach Company against John Griffin. Prom a judgment affirming an order of the county court continuing a temporary restraining order to the final hearing, defendant appeals. Affirmed. Action for permanent injunction, perpetually restraining defendant from operating on the state highway between the town of Rural Hall and the city of Winston-Salem an automobile for the transportation of passengers, for compensation, and for other relief.
The action was begun in the county court of Forsyth county. From order continuing a temporary restraining order to the final hearing, defendant appealed to the judge of the superior court of said county.
From judgment affirming the order of the county court, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
McMichael & McMichael, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
Ratcliff, Hudson & Ferrell, of Winston-Salem, for appellee.
There has been no final judgment determining the rights of the parties upon the matters involved in the controversy out of which this action arises. Issues of fact arising upon the pleadings have not been tried. A temporary restraining order, in accordance with the motion of plaintiff, supported by affidavits, has been continued to the final hearing by an order of the county court. The action has been heard in this court upon defendant's appeal from a judgment of the superior court, affirming the order of the county court. Defendant excepted to the judgment, and assigns same as error.
Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it has an exclusive franchise issued by the Corporation Commission, under the provisions of chapter 136, Public Laws 1927, to operate a bus on the state highway from Rural Hall to Winston-Salem, for the transportation of passengers, for hire; this allegation is denied by defendant, in his answer.
Plaintiff further alleges in its complaint that defendant is engaged in the business of operating an automobile on said highway, between Rural Hall and Winston-Salem, for the transportation of passengers, for hire, without a franchise from the state, and in unlawful competition with plaintiff; this allegation Is denied by defendant in his answer.
There was a sharp and serious conflict in the evidence offered by plaintiff and defendant, at the hearing, upon the issues of fact thus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Gillis
...148 S.E. 315 197 N.C. 223 SCOTT v. GILLIS. No. 481.Supreme Court of North CarolinaMay 22, 1929 ... Rouse, 186 N.C. 175, 119 ... S.E. 13; Camel City Coach Co. v. Griffin, 196 N.C ... 559, 146 ... ...
-
Scott v. Gillis
...a preliminary restraining order will be continued to the hearing." Cain v. Rouse, 186 N. C. 175, 119 S. E. 13; Camel City Coach Co. V. Griffin, 196 N. C. 559, 146 S. E. 203; New Hope Realty Co. v. Barnes, 197 N. C. 6, 147 S. E. 617. "Ordinarily, the right to injunctive relief to compel the ......
-
Rutledge v. Fitzgerald
...Lumber Co. v. W. I. Anderson & Co., 196 N.C. 474, 146 S.E. 88; Realty Corp. v. Fisher, 196 N.C. 503, 146 S.E. 82; Coach Co. v. Griffin, 196 N.C. 559, 146 S.E. 203. The judgment of the court below is affirmed. ...
-
Rutledge v. Fitzgerald
...Lumber Co. v. W. I. Anderson & Co., 196 N. C. 474, 146 S. E. 88; Realty Corp. v. Fisher, 196 N. C. 503, 146 S. E. 82; Coach Co. v. Griffin, 196 N. C. 559, 146 S. E. 203. The judgment of the court below is ...