STATE HIGHWAY & PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION v. Brown

Annotate this Case

77 S.E.2d 780 (1953)

238 N.C. 293

STATE HIGHWAY & PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION v. BROWN et al.

No. 110.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 30, 1953.

*781 R. Brookes Peters, Raleigh, and Gudger, Elmore & Martin, Asheville, for plaintiff appellant.

William V. Burrow, Asheville, for defendants-appellees.

JOHNSON, Justice.

The record discloses and it was conceded on the argument, that the drainage pipe installation complained of is now fait accompli, or a fact accomplished. This being so, there was nothing to support the preliminary order restraining the defendants *782 from "further erection and installation" of the pipes. Hence the plaintiff suffered no harm from the dissolution of the order. Groves v. McDonald, 223 N.C. 150, 25 S.E.2d 387; Rousseau v. Bullis, 201 N.C. 12, 158 S.E. 553. See also 43 C.J.S., Injunctions, ยง 246.

As to the court's refusal to allow the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary order of injunction requiring the defendants to remove the drainage pipes pending trial of the cause, the rule is that ordinarily "such an order will not be made as a preliminary injunction, except where the injury is immediate, pressing, irreparable, and clearly established, * * *." McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, Sec. 851, p. 972; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 237 N.C. 88, 74 S.E.2d 430; Clinard v. Lambeth, 234 N.C. 410, 67 S.E.2d 452. A study of the record leaves the impression that the plaintiff has failed to establish preliminary equities within the purview of this rule. The judgment below is

Affirmed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.