majority"> Per Curiam.

The questions involved: (1) Did the court err in preserving the status quo upon the facts set forth in this action and appear *265 ing from tbe pleadings? (2) Did tbe court err in making tbe Home Mortgage Corporation and First and Merchants National Bank of Richmond, Ya., parties 'defendant, where it appeared upon the record that they claimed to be beneficiaries under the deed of trust sought to be foreclosed? We think both questions must be answered in the negative.

In Holder v. Mortgage Co., ante, 207 (208), speaking to the subject, we find: “Injunctions generally will continue, where it will not harm defendant and may cause great injury to plaintiff, if dissolved. Wentz v. Land Co., 193 N. C., 32; Brinkley v. Norman, 190 N. C., 851; Cullins v. State College, 198 N. C., 337. Temporary restraining order will be continued until hearing, where serious controversy exists, and continuance cannot harm defendant, while dissolving might injure plaintiff, Brown v. Aydlett, 193 N. C., 832.”

There was no error in the court below making the cestuis qioe trustent parties to the action. This matter was decided in Bank v. Thomas, 204 N. C., 599. The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress