Case Name: MRS. W. L. HUTCHISON, CHARLES L. HUTCHISON and wife, GLADYS S. HUTCHISON, plaintiffs, v. CAROLINA AND SOUTHERN PROCESSING COMPANY, defendant
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1958-09-24
Citations: 248 N.C. 746
Docket Number: 
Parties: MRS. W. L. HUTCHISON, CHARLES L. HUTCHISON and wife, GLADYS S. HUTCHISON, plaintiffs, v. CAROLINA AND SOUTHERN PROCESSING COMPANY, defendant.
Judges: Paricer, J., not sitting.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 248
Pages: 746–746

Head Matter:
MRS. W. L. HUTCHISON, CHARLES L. HUTCHISON and wife, GLADYS S. HUTCHISON, plaintiffs, v. CAROLINA AND SOUTHERN PROCESSING COMPANY, defendant.
(Filed 24 September, 1958.)
Injunctions § 4b—
Order denying application for a temporary order restraining defendant from continuing to operate its plant on lands contiguous to lands owned by plaintiffs, demanded on the ground that such operation constituted a nuisance, affirmed on authority of HusMns v. Hospital, 238 N.C. 357.
Parker, J., not sitting.
Appeal by plaintiffs from Dan K. Moore, J., April Term, 1958, of GASTON.
Civil action wherein plaintiffs allege that the operation of defendant’s processing plant constitutes a nuisance; and plaintiffs seek (1) damages, and (2) a permanent injunction to abate the alleged nuisance.
After notice and hearing, the court signed an order denying plaintiffs’ application for “a temporary order . . . restraining the defendant . . . from continuing to operate its plant and maintain such nuisance on the land contiguous to the land of these plaintiffs ...”
Plaintiffs’ appeal is based upon their exception to this interlocutory order.
Hugh, W. Johnston, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Sidney J. Stern and Mullen, Holland & Cooke for defendant, ap-pellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The affidavits offered and considered at the hearing afforded -sufficient factual basis for the court, in its discretion, to deny plaintiffs' application that defendant be restrained pending final determination of the cause. Hence, the -order is affirmed.
The applicable legal principles are fully stated in Huskins v. Hospital, 238 N.C. 357, 78 S.E. 2d 116.
Affirmed.
Paricer, J., not sitting.