Teeter v. . Teeter

BeogdbN, J. Do tbe pleadings and affidavits disclose a serious dispute between tbe parties? The plaintiff alleged that be bad leased tbe defendant’s half interest in tbe dwelling-house for tbe year 1933 for a stipulated monthly rental, and in consideration thereof tbe defendant bad agreed not to foreclose tbe deed of trust during tbe year 1933. It was alleged also that tbe defendant bad violated tbe agreement by advertising tbe property. There was allegation to tbe effect that certain credits bad not been allowed to tbe plaintiffs by tbe defendant upon said indebtedness. This Court has held that it has tbe power to find and review findings of fact on appeal in injunction proceedings, and that “where it will not barm tbe defendant to continue tbe injunction, and may cause great injury to tbe plaintiff, if it is dissolved, tbe court generally will restrain tbe parties until tbe bearing . . . ; where serious questions were raised ... ; or where reasonably necessary to protect plaintiff’s rights.” Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N. C., 32, 135 S. E., 480; Ferebee v. Thomason, ante, 263. The defendant relies upon Leak v. Armfield, 187 N. C., 625, 122 S. E., 393. But it must be noted that in tbe Leah case, supra, there was no allegation of fraud, mistake, or breach of contract, and that tbe amount involved was due and ascertained. Consequently, tbe case is not controlling. Manifestly a serious dispute bad arisen between tbe parties and tbe restraining order should have been continued to tbe bearing. Eeversed.