Court Opinion

ID: 9582301
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:24:55.585292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:37.828940
License: Public Domain

Parker, J.,
dissenting. At the hearing on 3 October 1957 before Judge Olive, pursuant to his order of 27 September 1957, the city of Greensboro presented to the judge an affidavit of George H. Roach, Mayor of the city of Greensboro. This affidavit contains among many other statements, this: “That the spot at which the Southern Railway Company would have the work of this project restrained bears the heaviest and most congested traffic. That the latest traffic count discloses that more than 25,000 vehicles pass through the project area each day, *331and the estimated use by 1970 is 50,000 vehicles per day.” The Mayor further states in his affidavit: “That to continue the temporary restraining order and stoppage of the construction work under this project could contribute to many accidents to the general public who must operate their vehicles along said highway.”
J. A. Rust, General Manager of plaintiff, in the hearing before Judge Olive, testified: “Two trains run daily between Greensboro and Mount Airy over the track involved, one each way, and there are three other switch engine movements, three in each direction, passing this section. This makes eight movements altogether each day over the track in question.”
This Court said in Griffin v. R. R., 150 N.C. 312, 64 S.E. 16:
“It is against the policy of the law to restrain industries and such enterprises as tend to develop the country and its resources. It ought not to be done, except in extreme cases, and this is not such an one. It is contrary to the policy of the law to use the extraordinary powers of the court to arrest the development of industrial enterprises or the progress of works prosecuted apparently for the public good, as well as for private gain. The court will not put the public to needless inconvenience. The court should have dissolved the restraining order.”
The opinion cites numbers of our cases.
This Court also said in Jones v. Lassiter, 169 N.C. 750, 86 S.E. 710:
“It is true that when the injunctive relief sought is not merely ancillary to the relief demanded, but is, itself, the principal relief sought, the courts will generally continue the injunction to the hearing upon the making out of a prima facie case. Marshall v. Commissioners, 89 N.C. 103.
“But the rule does not hold good in cases where important public works and improvements are sought to be stopped. In such matters, in the interest of the public good, the courts will let the facts be found by a jury before interfering by injunction. The right of this plaintiff to recover damages for her alleged injuries is not now before us.”
See also, Scott v. Comrs., 170 N.C. 327, 87 S.E. 104; and Staton v. R. R., 147 N.C. 428, 61 S.E. 455.
It is public policy not to interfere with the construction of works of great public benefit, where the defendant is amply able to respond in damages, and no irreparable injury will accrue to plaintiff, if the injunction is refused.
E. L. Faulconer, a former President and General Manager of the Atlantic and Yadkin Railway Company, and now an assistant Vice-President of the plaintiff, and since December 1919 an employee of both railway companies, testified before Judge Olive: *332“The criss-cross plan was not, to my knowledge, a part of the Babcock Plan. Well, in a way, what the Southern Railway is objecting to in this is not the putting of the streets there, but the way these are being put there. The engineering is one objection.”
The city of Greensboro is a municipal corporation, and able to respond in damages, if any should be awarded. If the plaintiff should prevail at the trial on the merits of the controversy, it has an adequate remedy at law to recover adequate compensation for any loss it may sustain by any acts of the city of Greensboro, and the court can enter such judgment as to justice appertains and the rights of the plaintiff may require in accordance with law.
Judge Olive found in an order 16 October 1957 that “plaintiff will not sustain any damage by the carrying on of the construction work originally restrained by the temporary restraining order.”
I vote to affirm Judge Olive’s order dissolving the temporary restraining order before issued by Judge Preyer. •