Legal Opinion

Woodard v. . Harrell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 17, 1926PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

It is not necessary to cite authorities that the rule in this jurisdiction is well settled that a plaintiff in ejectment must recover, if at all, upon the strength of his own title and not upon the weakness of his adversary.

“At the trial it was admitted that plaintiffs owned the land on the north, or northwest, and that defendants owned the land on the south, or southwest, of the true dividing line between them; and that the only questions in controversy were, (1) the location of the true dividing line, and (2) whether defendants had cut timber on plaintiffs’ side thereof. Roth parties claim…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Shaffer v. GaynorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  2. Shaffer v. . HahnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
  3. Buckner v. . AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
  4. Hanstein v. . FerrallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  5. Boddie v. . BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Daniel v. Tallassee Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  2. Wagner v. BaumanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API