Court Opinion

ID: 3875632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 09:08:43.889672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:59:52.018453
License: Public Domain

It appearing that the action is for the sole purpose of an injunction and that a temporary injunction, that is, an injunction pendente lite is essential to the assertion and preservation of a legal right, if established as alleged in the complaint, it follows that the refusal of such injunction was error of law. Alderman v.Wilson, 48 S.E., 85; 69 S.C. 156. Lumber Co. v. Tilghman,55 S.E., 337; 75 S.C. 221. Ragsdale v. R. Co.,38 S.E., 609; 60 S.C. 681. Jones v. Atlantic Coast L. Corp.,75 S.E., 698; 92 S.C. 418. Strom v. American Co., 20 S.E., 16; 42 S.C. 101. Seabrook v. Mostowitz, 29 S.E., 202; 51 S.C. 434. Cudd v. Calvert, 32 S.E., 503; 54 S.C. 457.Darlington Oil Co. v. Ice Co., 40 S.E., 169; 62 S.C. 196.Riley v. Union Station, 45 S.E., 149; 67 S.C. 84.Childs v. City, 70 S.E., 296; 87 S.C. 566; 34 L.R.A. (N.S.), 542.
The Reporter will append the statement in the case, the complaint, the order of Judge Dennis, and the exceptions.
The judgment of this Court should be that the order appealed from the reversed.
MR. JUSTICE MARION concurs.