Court Opinion

ID: 9811269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:14:50.54508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:09.856349
License: Public Domain

Hoice, J.,
concurring: I concur in the disposition made of this appeal by which the injunction is continued to the hearing, and in the opinion that these warehouses dedicated by the owners or management to the public marketing of tobacco are affected with a public use and interest so as to become the subject of reasonable public regulations. And I am inclined to the opinion that the regulations now established by the Kinston Tobacco Board, as to the selection and qualification of these buyers, may be too restrictive. Reserving final decision on that question, however, until the facts are more fully disclosed at the hearing, I am of opinion further that subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as may be established by the public agencies, and when not interfering with same, the authorities in control and management of these warehouses have the power to establish for themselves such reasonable *179rules and regulations as may be required to promote business efficiency and insure fair and bonest dealing in the transactions occurring there, and the same may extend to tbe exclusion of an individual buyer or seller who bas been properly shown to be guilty of dishonest practices on the warehouse floor, and such as tend to destroy the confidence of the public and patrons in the integrity of their management, and of the business methods under their supervision and control. On perusal of the record, it is alleged in the answer of defendants, and duly verified, that the plaintiff, who had been a member of the board of trade, privileged to sell and buy in these warehouses after a full and impartial hearing had been found guilty of “nesting tobacco” at one of these warehouse sales, this being a practice by which the tobacco offered for sale is so packed as to deceive bidders and give a false impression of its value, and that he was expelled from his membership and excluded from buying for that reason and pursuant to a rule to that effect established by the governing board. If these allegations should be established on the hearing, whatever may be the rights of the public and patrons generally, I am of the opinion that the present claimant, as an individual buyer, has been properly excluded, and I am well assured that no court should lend its aid to restore him to a participation in the warehouse privileges. Public policy requiring that' these warehouse sales should be kept free from unreasonable restrictions, and the pertinent facts being in dispute, I think plaintiff prima facie has the right to take part and have his bids duly considered, and that his position should be maintained to the hearing. Tise v. Whitaker, 144 N. C., 508; Cobb v. Clegg, 131 N. C., 153. But there being material issues raised on the pleadings, which may affect both the question of liability and the amount of damages, I am of the opinion that the order must be without prejudice, and subject to the determination of these issues at the final hearing. Although this may be to some extent in the nature of a mandatory injunction, the authorities hold that a preliminary order is at times permissible in such eases, and I think this course should be pursued in the present instance. Keys v. Alligood, 178 N. C., 16; High on Injunctions (4 ed.), sec. 4.
Stacy, J.,
concurring: I think the plaintiff prima facie is entitled to the privileges of a buyer upon the warehouse floors of the defendants, which have been dedicated to the public marketing of tobacco. I am also of the opinion that the regulation fixing membership in the Kinston Board of Trade as a prerequisite to the privilege of buying at such warehouses is unreasonable and void. However, the duty which the defendants owe to the public of maintaining a free and open market is coequal with their obligation to support and promote the principles of honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in their business. Both affect the public *180interest. Hence, it appearing that material issues are raised by tbe pleadings, which may bear upon the question of liability as well as the issue of damages, I concur in the result, and agree that the restraining order should be continued without prejudice and subject to the determination of these pertinent issues at the final hearing.
Walker and Allen, JJ"., concur in result upon the ground that the ease ought to be more fully developed, and the issues raised by the pleadings determined before an expression of opinion on the legal questions discussed before us.