{
  "id": 8621413,
  "name": "THE WALTER TURNER COFFEE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. MAXWELL H. THOMPSON and JAMES G. LIPE, t/d/a THOMPSON-LIPE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walter Turner Coffee Co. v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1958-04-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "207",
  "last_page": "208",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 N.C. 207"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 114",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N.C. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616706
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 596",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608703
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0531-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 319",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0500-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 116",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608165
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 263",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613304
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0478-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3770,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.998477365028198e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5031017252357184
    },
    "sha256": "f65ee62d0eeb2f6400b7256575f5d60df69cc1dccda9934301bffd2f3ef1d4e2",
    "simhash": "1:b2afef03665feccd",
    "word_count": 627
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:24.992419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE WALTER TURNER COFFEE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. MAXWELL H. THOMPSON and JAMES G. LIPE, t/d/a THOMPSON-LIPE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Higgins, J.\nThe contract set up by the defendants is discussed in the case of Thompson v. Turner, 245 N.C. 478, 96 S.E. 2d 263. We refrain from further discussion of the merits in order that neither party may be prejudiced at the final hearing. This Court is not bound by the findings of fact made at the trial below; it \u201c. . . nevertheless indulges the presumption that the findings of the hearing judge are correct, and requires the appellant to assign and show error . . .\u201d Huskins v. Hospital, 238 N.C. 357, 78 S.E. 2d 116.\nWe have a right to assume the trial court dissolved the order in the exercise of a sound discretion. \u201c. . . \u2018whether the court will dissolve an injunction on hearing the answer only, or will order the bill to stand over for proofs, much must depend upon the sound discretion of the judge who is to decide the question.\u2019 . . . \u2018But it is also a well settled rule that when by the answer the plaintiff\u2019s whole equity is denied, and the statement in the answer is credible and exhibits no attempt to evade the material charges in the complaint, ... an injunction . . . will be dissolved.\u2019 \u201d Lance v. Cogdill, 238 N.C. 500, 78 S.E. 2d 319. (authorities cited)\nIn this case it is extremely doubtful whether the complaint can be so construed as to allege either the plaintiff is threatened with irreparable injury, or that it does not have an adequate remedy at law. Arey v. Lemons, 232 N.C. 531, 61 S.E. 2d 596; Oil Co. v. Mecklenburg County, 212 N.C. 642, 194 S.E. 114.\nThe order of the Superior Court from which this appeal is taken is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Higgins, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. H. Strickland, Alfred R. Crisp, for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Williams & Whisnant, for defendants, appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE WALTER TURNER COFFEE COMPANY, INCORPORATED, v. MAXWELL H. THOMPSON and JAMES G. LIPE, t/d/a THOMPSON-LIPE COMPANY.\n(Filed 9 April, 1958.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 50\u2014\nIn injunction proceedings the Supreme Court is not hound by the findings of fact of the trial court, but nevertheless the presumption: is in -favor of such findings, and appelant must assign and show error.\n2. Injunctions \u00a7 S\u2014\n,The court has the sound discretion to dissolve a- temporary restraining order when plaintiff\u2019s whole equity -is denied in the answer,, certainly when it does not affirmatively appear that plaintiff is -threatened with irreparable injury or that he does mot have an adequate remedy at law.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Nettles, J., November 1957 Term, Caldwell Superior Court.\nCivil action (1) for recovery of a penalty for alleged unlawful use of trade-marks; (2) for mandatory order requiring defendants to surrender \u201call trade-marks and designs, -duplicates, or imitations\u201d belonging to the plaintiff; (3) for temporary restraining -order against the use of any product beaming \u201cthe tra,de-marks and designs\u201d of the plaintiff. Upon the verified complaint, treated as an affidavit, the \u25a0court issued a temporary restraining order.\nBy verified answer, the defendants set up the defense that under a contract they bad with Walter D. Turner they obtained the legal right to the use of the trade-marks, designs, etc., and that Walter D. Turner had organized the .plaintiff corporation and attempted to assign to it rights already assigned to the defendants; and that the attempted assignment was for the purpose of defeating the defendants of their rights under the contract; that the -incorporators are the members of Walter D. Turner\u2019s family; -that he is the owner and organizer, and the corporation -is his alter ego.\nBy reply, the plaintiff alleged it was not a party to the contract and that the same was void for uncertainty, and for .other reasons.\nAfter hearing, the court dissolved the restraining order without finding, or a request for finding, facts. The plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nW. H. Strickland, Alfred R. Crisp, for plaintiff, appellant.\nWilliams & Whisnant, for defendants, appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0207-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 250
}