WILSON v. FEATHERSTONE

Practice — Injunction — Bond — Solvency of Defendants — Adequate Legal Remedy.

1. It is improper to grant an injunction where the written undertaking required by Section 341 of The Code is not filed or tendered.

2. Where there was no allegation of insolvency of the defendants, but on the contrary, there was an admission in plaintiff's affidavit that the defendants were amply able to respond in damages for any wrong done to plaintiff, it was improper to grant an injunction against defendants who cut off the water supply from premises allotted to the plaintiff as dower, and built a high fence around the same so as to close up her windows.

FAIRCLOTH, C. J.

There are two reasons why an injunction should not have been granted in this case:

1. No written undertaking was written or tendered as required. The Code, sec. 341; Miller v. Parker, 73 N.C. 58; James v. Withers, 114 N.C. 474.

2. There is no allegation of defendants' insolvency; on the contrary, the plaintiff's affidavit admits that the defendants "are wealthy and amply able to respond in damages for any wrong done this affiant." Hettrick v. Page, 82 N.C. 65; McNamee v. Alexander, 109 N.C. 242; Land Co. v. Webb, 117 N.C. 478.

Reversed.

Cited: Rope Co. v. Aluminum Co., 165 N.C. 576.

(451)