Case Name: THE TEXAS COMPANY v. L. S. BYRUM, Trading as TRIANGLE FILLING STATION
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1927-09-14
Citations: 194 N.C. 789
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE TEXAS COMPANY v. L. S. BYRUM, Trading as TRIANGLE FILLING STATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 789–790

Head Matter:
THE TEXAS COMPANY v. L. S. BYRUM, Trading as TRIANGLE FILLING STATION.
(Filed 14 September, 1927.)
Appeal by defendant from an order of Clayton Moore, Special Judge, made 22 June, 1927. From OhowaN.
W. D. Pruden for plaintiff.
■Ehringhaus & Hall and H. B. Leary for defendant.

Opinion:
Per • Curiam.
This is an application for a restraining order to prevent tbe defendant from removing from tbe premises described in tbe pleadings certain property and equipment and from refusing to deal in tbe plaintiff's products. Tbe plaintiff alleges tbat on 11 April, 1923, it leased from Sessoms and Wood a certain lot in Edenton for a term of three years from 1 May, 1923, and thereafter from year to year not exceeding two years, subject to termination by tbe lessee at tbe end of tbe original term, or any subsequent period by a written notice of thirty days; tbat at tbe same time tbe parties entered into a license agreement by wbicb tbe plaintiff permitted Sessoms & Wood to occupy tbe premises upon agreed terms, and tbat tbe defendant succeeded to tbe rights of Sessoms & Wood. It is further alleged by tbe plaintiff tbat tbe defendant thereafter executed ¿nd submitted to it a proposed lease for a term of ten years from 1 May, 1926, wbicb, after acceptance, was duly registered, and tbat tbe defendant in disregard thereof afterwards notified tbe plaintiff tbat it was bis purpose to sever tbe contractual rela tion between them and to move the plaintiff's property from the premises. The defendant denied the execution of the ten-year lease and alleged that his only agreement with the plaintiff expired on 1 May, 1928.
The restraining order was continued and the defendant appealed. In this we think there was no error. The correspondence, exhibits and affidavits are not sufficiently definite for us to determine therefrom that the defendant is entitled -as a matter of law to have the restraining order dissolved. The judgment is
Affirmed.