Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. N.J. Frederick and Butler J. Nance, for appellants, cite: Error to dissolve temporary injunction on affidavits: 54 S.C. 457. Such injunctions should be continued when essential to the assertion and preservation of plaintiff's rights, and when he has no other adequate remedy at law; 51 S.C. 433; 69 S.C. 156; High on Injunctions, (4th Ed.) Sec. 1508-9-10-12. Columbia has been place of business for 40 years. 14 C.J. 339, 341, 342: Members of the organization may enjoin unauthorized removal of the office: High on Injunctions, 4th Ed. Sec. 1223c. Messrs. Melton Belser and Edw. L. Craig, for respondents, cite: Matter complained of is one of internal regulation and will not be disturbed by the Courts: 29 Cyc. 199. Courts will rarely interfere with exercise of discretionary powers in corporate bodies: 20 N.Y. Supp. 437. Must exhaust remedies within the order before appealing to the Courts: 30 N.Y. Supp. 885. Removal must produce injury and violate rights of plaintiffs to entitle them to injunction: Code Proc. 1912, Sec. 270. Court will not grant injunction pendente lite unless it is reasonably essential to protect legal rights of plaintiff: 86 S.C. 162. Charter does not name Columbia as principal place of business: 17 Stat. 880
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Messrs. N.J. Frederick and Butler J. Nance, for appellants, cite: Error to dissolve temporary injunction on affidavits: 54 S.C. 457. Such injunctions should be continued when essential to the assertion and preservation of plaintiff's rights, and when he has no other adequate remedy at law; 51 S.C. 433; 69 S.C. 156; High on Injunctions, (4th Ed.) Sec. 1508-9-10-12. Columbia has been place of business for 40 years. 14 C.J. 339, 341, 342: Members of the organization may enjoin unauthorized removal of the office: High on Injunctions, 4th Ed. Sec. 1223c. Messrs. Melton Belser and Edw. L. Craig, for respondents, cite: Matter complained of is one of internal regulation and will not be disturbed by the Courts: 29 Cyc. 199. Courts will rarely interfere with exercise of discretionary powers in corporate bodies: 20 N.Y. Supp. 437. Must exhaust remedies within the order before appealing to the Courts: 30 N.Y. Supp. 885. Removal must produce injury and violate rights of plaintiffs to entitle them to injunction: Code Proc. 1912, Sec. 270. Court will not grant injunction pendente lite unless it is reasonably essential to protect legal rights of plaintiff: 86 S.C. 162. Charter does not name Columbia as principal place of business: 17 Stat. 880
See more information ...
Smart Summary

FREDERICK ET AL. v. BROWN ET AL.

February 28, 1921. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY.

This is an action for the sole purpose of an injunction. The facts are stated in the order of his Honor the County Judge, who refused the application for a temporary injunction; and the plaintiffs appealed. They have failed to satisfy this Court that his Honor the County Judge erroneously exercised his discretion in refusing to grant the injunction pendente lite.

Appeal dismissed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

FREDERICK et al. v. BROWN et al
(Feb 28, 1921)