Fulbright v. . Yoder
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action for partition of lands, commenced before the Clerk and transferred to the Superior Court of Catawba County, and heard before Boykin, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1893, of said Court.
Read the full summary
Action for partition of lands, commenced before the Clerk and transferred to the Superior Court of Catawba County, and heard before Boykin, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1893, of said Court. The issue submitted', with the consent of all parties, was: “ Were the words ‘in trust for the sole benefit of the said Z. T. McCaslin, his heirs and assigns, forever, in fee simple/ omitted from the habendum clause of the deed by mistake, inadvertence or oversight, as alleged in the answer?” The deed in question was as follows: “This deed, made the 12th day of October, 1860, between Matthew McCaslin and…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Guriam:
The case of Holmes v. Holmes, 86 N. C., 205, is similar to the one before us, and, according to the principles there laid down, Z. T. McCaslin took an equitable fee, although words of inheritance were omitted in the limitation. It is therefore unnecessary to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence offered for the purpose of correcting the deed. While it must be admitted that the doctrine of the above mentioned case is not supported by text-writers or the previous decisions of this Court, yet it is believed to be founded upon more equitable principles in arriving at the real…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holmes v. . HolmesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
3Cited by8 opinions
- Smith v. Proctor.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Helms v. . AustinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Allen v. . BaskervilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Clark v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- Clark v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.