{
  "id": 8655725,
  "name": "J. V. WALLACE v. TOWN OF NORTH WILKESBORO",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wallace v. Town of North Wilkesboro",
  "decision_date": "1910-01-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "614",
  "last_page": "615",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 614"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.577867391331025e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8168557317434337
    },
    "sha256": "39907ae2342b8e8f6f81ef433cec216b9c9c11b0bc0eea38adb81bd80aa9354e",
    "simhash": "1:04a0193789acb43e",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. V. WALLACE v. TOWN OF NORTH WILKESBORO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROWN, J.\n.This is a civil cause, duly instituted by the plaintiff against tbe defendant, town of North Wilkesboro. A temporary restraining order was issued in said cause by W. R. Allen, Judge, restraining the town of North Wilkesboro from purchasing the \u201cHackett Mill property,\u201d to be used for municipal purposes, in the way of installing a water system and supplying the town with drinking water.\nThe temporary restraining order was heard by W. B. Councill, resident judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District, at chambers, in Hickory, N. C., on 17 July, 1909, and, after being heard, was dissolved. From such judgment the plaintiff appealed.\nIt was admitted upon the argument that as soon as the judge below dissolved the restraining order the defendant commissioners purchased the property, and that the transaction has been completed by the execution of a deed.\nIt is further called to the attention of this Court that, since the said purchase has been made and the deed executed, the General Assembly of 1909 has ratified and\u2019 fully confirmed the purchase. Chapter 112, sec. 21, p. 289, Private Laws 1909.\nAs this case is not before us upon its merits or upon any issues raised by the pleadings, but only upon an appeal from an interlocutory order, tbe necessity for tbe bearing of tbis appeal bas been obviated, since tbe defendant bas accomplished, pending tbis appeal, tbe purchase of tbe Haekett property and the utilization of tbe same for tbe purposes for which it was purchased, and tbe purchase bas been ratified by tbe lawmaking power.\nTbe Court will not pass on a mere abstract proposition. Pickler v. Board of Education, 149 N. C., p. 223. In this case, Clark, G. J., says: \u201cPending this appeal, the new schoolhouse bas doubtless been built. If that appeared, we would not decide.an abstract question.\u201d See, also, per curiam, order in a similar case of Harrison v. New Bern, August Term, 1908.\nTbe dismissal of tbis appeal from an interlocutory order does not dismiss the case. It is still pending in tbe Superior Court of Wilkes County, and tbe parties may proceed as they may be advised.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROWN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Benbow & Caviness for plaintiff.",
      "Finley & Ilendren for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. V. WALLACE v. TOWN OF NORTH WILKESBORO.\n(Filed 8 January, 1910.)\n1. Injunction, Temporary \u2014 Order Dismissed \u2014 Appeal and Error\u2014 Acts Accomplished \u2014 Abstract Propositions.\nAn appeal from the dissolution of a restraining order will not be considered, when it appears that acts sought to be restrained have been committed, the appeal thus presenting merely an abstract proposition.\n2. Appeal, and Error \u2014 Interlocutory Orders \u2014 Appeal Dismissed \u2014 Procedure.\nThe dismissal of an appeal from an interlocutory order dissolving an injunction does not necessarily dismiss the action, but leaves it pending in the Superior Court.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Councill, J., refusing to grant an injunction, beard at chambers in Hickory, 17 July, 1909; from Wilkes.\nBenbow & Caviness for plaintiff.\nFinley & Ilendren for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0614-01",
  "first_page_order": 658,
  "last_page_order": 659
}