McFarland v. . Quinn , 188 N.C. 645 ( 1924 )

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was under contract with Burlington Mills, Inc., to install certain machinery in a building owned by the said Burlington Mills, Inc., by a date fixed by the contract. Tbe performance of this contract made it necessary for plaintiff to go upon the premises of the Burlington Mills, Inc., and to have control of the machinery which be bad contracted to install. Plaintiff contends that the subcontract which be bad made with defendant bad been broken by the willful and arbitrary refusal of defendant to perform the same in accordance with its terms, and that by reason of such breach defendant bad no right to go upon said premises or to interfere with plaintiff’s possession and control of the said machinery. Plaintiff further contends that the defendant’s persistence in going upon the said premises and interfering with his possession of the said machinery is wrongful and unlawful. Tbe judge, upon the bearing, finds the facts to be in accordance with the plaintiff’s contention. He further finds that defendant threatens to go upon the said premises and to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession of the machinery thereon, and that such conduct on the part of the defendant will work irreparable damage to the plaintiff, who is under contract to complete his work by 25 August, 1924.

The order of the judge continuing the restraining order to the final bearing of the action is sustained by the facts, which are admitted in the pleadings and found by the judge upon the bearing. These findings are not conclusive upon the parties, but are for the purpose of disposing of the motion for continuance of the restraining order only. These findings and the order of the judge do not prejudice the rights of the parties at the final bearing of the action.

There was no error in continuing tbe restraining order.

Affirmed.