Moore v. Cooper Monument Co
| Decision Date | 01 April 1914 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MOORE et al. v. COOPER MONUMENT CO. et al. |
Where the monument, the erection of which plaintiff sought to enjoin, had been erected since the ruling dissolving the restraining order, an appeal will not be entertained to determine the correctness of the ruling.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 63-80; Dec. Dig. § 19.*]
It was error to dismiss an action for injunction, and to enter final judgment on the dissolution of temporary order, where the merits were not before the court, and where the sufficiency of the complaint could only be considered in determining the right to the restraining order.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, ' Cent. Dig. §§ 279-287; Dec. Dig. § 129.*]
Final judgment, in an action for an injunction, except where the hearings are elsewhere by consent, should be rendered in the county where the action is pending, and in term.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Injunction, Cent. Dig. §§ 427, 431; Dec. Dig. § 208.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Pender County; Rountree, Judge.
Injunction by J. F. Moore and others against the Cooper Monument Company and others. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal. Modified and affirmed.
This is an action to prevent the erection of a Confederate monument at the intersectionof Fremont and Wright streets in Burgaw, upon the ground that it would be an obstruction in the streets. The plaintiffs obtained a temporary order restraining the erection of the monument, which was returnable, and was heard in Columbus county. At the hearing the temporary order was dissolved, and the action dismissed, and the plaintiff accepted and appealed. It is admitted that since the dissolution of the restraining order the monument has been erected.
J. D. Bellamy, of Wilmington, and J. T. Bland, of Burgaw, for appellants.
Robert Ruark, of Wilmington, E. L. Larkins, of Burgaw, Stevens & Beasley, of Warsaw, John J. Best, of Yanceyville, and A. Mc. L. Graham, of Clinton, for appellees.
[1] As the monument has been erected, the court will not entertain an appeal to determine the correctness of the ruling dissolving the restraining order. Harrison v. Bryan, 148 N. C. 315, 62 S. E. 305; Pickler v. Board of Education, 149 N. C. 221, 62 S. E. 902; Wallace v. Wilkesboro, 151 N. C. 614, 66 S. E. 657.
We think, however, there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Parker.
...S. E. 902; Huet v. Lumber Co., 138 N. C. at page 445, 50 S. E. 846; Wallace v. Wilkesboro, 151 N. C. 614, 66 S. E. 657; Moore v. Monument Co., 166 N. C. 211, 81 S. E. 170; Little v. Lenoir, 151 N. C. 417, 66 S. E. 337. We may well close with a reference to what was held in several recent ca......
-
Union Carbide Corp. v. Davis
...the law of the case. In the absence of agreement to the contrary, such a judgment can only be entered in term. Moore v. Cooper Monument Co., 166 N.C. 211, 81 S.E. 170. 'A permanent or perpetual injunction issues as a final judgment which settles the rights of the parties, after the determin......
-
Glenn v. Culbreth
...221, 62 S. E. 902; Little v. Lenoir, 151 N. C. 415, 66 S. E. 337; Wallace v. Wilkesboro, 151 N. C. 614, 66 S. E. 657; Moore v. Monument Co., 166 N. C. 211, 81 S. E. 170. Furthermore, if the registration is declared to be void, such ruling, under the circumstances of the case, would, in effe......
-
Carroll v. Warrenton Tobacco Bd. of Trade, Inc., 2
...399, 8 S.E.2d 252, 258; Bynum v. Powe, 97 N.C. 374, 2 S.E. 170. Motions of that kind should be heard at term.' See Moore v. Cooper Monument Co., 166 N.C. 211, 81 S.E. 170; Union Carbide Corp. v. Davis, 253 N.C. 324, 116 S.E.2d 792. Teer v. Jordan, 232 N.C. 48, 59 S.E.2d 359, cited by defend......