This is an appeal from an order of the lower court granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exercise of an alleged right of plaintiff to lay and construct a pipeline, in addition to its existing lines, across lands over which it had been previously granted an easement. The question to be decided is whether the lower cоurt erred in granting the temporary injunction.
Under the provisions of Section 10-2055 of the 1962 Code of Laws, a temporary injunction may be granted “when it shall appear: (1) By the complaint, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and such rеlief, or any part thereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of some act the commission or continuance of which, during the litigation, would produce injury to the plaintiff.”
The two essential conditions to the granting of а temporary injunction were thus stated in
Childs v. City of
Columbia, 87 S. C. 566, 568,
It is well settled that, in determining whether a temporary injunction should issue, the merits of the case are not to be considered, except in so far as they may enable the court to determine whether a prima faciе showing has been made. When a prima facie showing has been made entitling plaintiff to injunctive relief, a temporary injunction will be granted without regard to the ultimate termination of the case on the merits.
Alderman & Sons Co. v. Wilson,
69 S. C. 156,
Injunctive relief, under the foregоing section, is a matter that rests in the sound descretion of the judge to whom application is made and, as stated in
Alston v. Board of Health,
93 S. C. 553,
We have held that a temporary injunction may рroperly issue to protect rights acquired under an easement.
Darlington Oil Company v. Pee Dee Oil & Ice Company,
62 S. C. 196,
The question then is whether plaintiff made a prima facie showing for injunctive relief. The matter was heard by the lоwer court upon the pleadings, affidavit of plaintiff’s agent, and exhibits setting forth other litigation between the parties rеlative to the exercise by plainiff of its claimed rights under the easement. In reviewing the order *482 of the lower court, we confine our review of the facts solely to those considered necessary to a decision of the forеgoing question.
The complaint states a cause of action solely for injunction. It alleged that, on February 9, 1950, the defendant, S. V. Porter, and his wife, executed and delivered to the plaintiff, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporatiоn, a right of way and easement across a 120 acre tract of land in Cherokee County, authorizing the laying and construсtion of pipelines thereon, with the right, from time to time, to lay “one or more additional lines of pipe” approximately parallel to the first; and that for any additional line laid the plaintiff would pay a sum equivalent to one ($1.00) dollar per lineal rod of such additional line. The easement further provided that “the right of way herein granted is restricted to a width of fifty (50) feet for construction of the initial line and shall revert to a width of thirty feet after construction for maintenance рurposes.” It appears that the first line was laid across the property shortly after the right of way was granted. A seсond line was constructed in 1956 and a third one in 1962.
It is further alleged that plaintiff is now in the process of laying a fourth pipeline across the property for the purpose of transmitting natural gas in interstate commerce; that defendants (which include the original grantor and his children) have forbidden plaintiff’s agents from entering upon the lands for such purpose, and that the stoppage of the construction of the line across the property seriously interferís with plaintiff’s entire construction program from Texas to New York, causing plaintiff to suffer irreparable injury and damage unless a temporary restraining order is issued. An affidavit filed by plaintiff sets forth that its agent was threatened by defendants and threats made to blоw up the pipeline if it was laid on the property. The complaint seeks a temporary restraining order and а permanent injunction against defendants from interferring with the proposed construction.
*483 The answer of the defendаnts admits the execution of the above mentioned easement and that they have denied the plaintiff the right to prоceed with the construction, but denies that the easement authorizes plaintiff to construct the additional line in question.
While plaintiff has the power of eminent domain,
Bagwell v. Transcontinental Gas Line Corp.,
246 S. C. 569,
Courts which have construed similar multiple pipeline easements have held that they are unambiguous and grant the right to lay additiоnal lines. See the following cases and those cited therein:
Hamilton v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.,
It is admitted that defendants have denied plaintiff the right to proceed with the construction of the pipeline in question. The line is being laid for the transmission of natural gas from Texas to New York and the conclusion is justified that a dеlay in the construction would result in injury to plaintiff.
In view of all of the circumstances, we think that the lower court was justified, in the exercise of its discretion, in issuing the temporary injunction to protect the rights of plaintiff pending the litigation.
Affirmed.