Court Opinion

ID: 6697947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 21:59:37.941514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:01:18.571899
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.
Conceding that under the principles announced in McLamb v. McLamb, 208 N. C., 72, 178 S. E., 847, and Ins. Co. v. Cates, 193 N. C., 456, 137 S. E., 324, and the kindred doctrines promulgated in Bank v. Page, 206 N. C., 18, 173 S. E., 312, and Porter v. Ins. Co., 207 N. C., 646, 178 S. E., 223, the plaintiff originally had some rights, cognizable in equity, it would appear that his agreement, made in exchange for indulgences, not to bring any further proceeding “to restrain said sale,” ought to be respected in this, the third suit instituted for the purpose. The cestui also has some rights. Dennis v. Redmond, 210 N. C., 780; Leak v. Armfield, 187 N. C., 625, 122 S. E., 393; Everhart v. Adderton, 175 N. C., 403, 95 S. E., 614.
The showing made by appellant is not sufficient to overturn the judgment entered below.
Affirmed.