LOCAL FINANCE COMPANY OF SHELBY v. Jordan

HiggiNS, J. The plaintiff seeks to restrain the breach of a written contract the parties executed. True, the validity of that contract is in dispute. Ordinarily, a -court of equity should not resolve a serious dispute without a full hearing on the merits. “It is generally proper, when the parties are at issue concerning the legal or equitable right, to grant an interlocutory injunction to preserve the right in statu quo until the determination of the controversy, an-d especially is this the rule when the principal relie-f sought is in itself an injunction, because a dissolution of a pending interlocutory injunction, or the refusal of one, upon application therefor in the first instance, will virtually decide the case upon its merits and deprive the plaintiff of all remedy or relief, even though he should be afterwards able to show ever so good a case.” Coach Lines v. Brotherhood, 254 N.C. 60, 118 S.E. 2d 37; *129 Boone v. Boone, 217 N.C. 722, 9 S.E. 2d 383; Cobb v. Clegg, 137 N.C. 153, 49 S.E. 80. Under the circumstances, Judge Pless was justified in continuing the restraining order to the final hearing. Consequently .the order is Affirmed. Bobbitt, J. concurs in result.