¶1 There are two reasons why an injunc - tion should not have been granted in this case:
¶2 1. No written undertaking was written or tendered as required. The Code, Section 341; Miller v. Parker, 73 N. C., 58; James v. Withers, 114 N. C., 474.
¶3 2. There is no allegation of defendant’s insolvency; on the contrary, the plaintiffs’ affidavit admits that the defendants “are wealthy and amply able to respond in damages for any wrong done this affiant.” Hettrick v. Page, 82 N. C., 65; McNamee v. Alexander, 109 N. C., 242; Land Co. v. Webb, 117 N. C., 478.
¶4 Reversed.