{
  "id": 11277366,
  "name": "WILLIAM WALDROP v. SILAS M. GREEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Waldrop v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1869-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 344"
    }
  ],
  "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": 215,
    "char_count": 3346,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.416,
    "sha256": "abb5eb072e2cc632dd603e005d91138eecedb82eba3c2c42372dfd94c10da476",
    "simhash": "1:80e6e5a34c5b97d1",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WILLIAM WALDROP v. SILAS M. GREEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PearsoN, C. J.\nThis case was entered on his docket by the clerk of the Superior Court, according to sec. 400, \u201c Code of Civil Procedure.\u201d \u2022 By sec. 402, it is directed: \u201cThe said suits shall be proceeded in and tried under the existing laws and rules applicable thereto.\u201d So we agree with his Honor in his ruling, that the plaintiff had no right to take issue upon the facts set out in the answer, and have such issue submitted to a jury. Before the Court could take any further-action in the cause, we think the motion to dissolve the injunction on bill and answer was properly before the Court for-determination.\nWe also agree with his Honor, that upon bill and answer the' injunction ought to have been dissolved, indeed we ar& inclined to the opinion that the bill upon its face, has no equity. The injunction was improvidently granted.\nLet this be certified, &c.\nPer Curiam. Ordered accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PearsoN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      ".Phillips & Merrimon, for the appellant.",
      "No counsel, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WILLIAM WALDROP v. SILAS M. GREEN.\nInjunctions pending at the adoption of the Code of Civil Procedure, are to he proceeded in and tried under the existing laws and rules applicable thereto; therefore,\nThe defendant in such a case has a right to have a motion to dissolve upon bill and answer, considered before a replication can be put in.\nAn injunction against a recovery at law, granted upon bill which stated as grounds for the application, that the title to a horse which the plaintiff had obtained by exchange from the defendant, had failed, and .that the defendant was insolvent, and was seeking to recover damages from him for converting the horse which he had conveyed by exchange to the defendant, was granted improvidently.\nINJUNCTION, dissolved by Cannon, J., at Fall Term 1868 of the Superior Court of Cherokee.\nThe bill, filed to Spring Term 1888, alleged that the plaintiff and defendant had exchanged horses in 1866, and that 'tbe title to the horse which the plaintiff had received failed; ;and that thereupon he claimed that his own horse thereby .reverted to him for the breach of implied warranty by the \u25a0defendant, \u201c and by virtue of said claim it came into his possession; \u201d that the defendant had brought suit for such horse .and had recovered judgment, and was intending to enforce an \u25a0execution thereupon; that in the mean time the plaintiff had brought a suit for the breach of warranty, which was still \u25a0pending; and that the defendant was insolvent. The prayer \u25a0was for an injunction, <fcc.\nThe answer denied all the material allegations in the bill (excepting that there had been an exchange of horses, and that the two suits at law- had been brought, and a judgment \u25a0obtained by the defendant in the one brought by him.\nAt Spring Term 1868, upon the coming in of the answer, a \u00a1motion was made to dissolve the injunction theretofore granted, \u2022and such motion was continued.\nAt Fall Term 1868 upon the cause being called, the counsel 'for the plaintiff objected that as it now stood upon the law docket, the motion for a dissolution should not be heard; but that the plaintiff should be allowed to put in a replication, and have the facts tried instanter before a. jury, announcing himself ready for such trial.\nHis Honor overruled the objection and on consideration of the motion, ordered the injunction to be dissolved. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed.\n.Phillips & Merrimon, for the appellant.\nNo counsel, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 360,
  "last_page_order": 362
}