Hartman v. . Flynn
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtVarser, J.
It is conceded that, if the rule in Shelley’s case applies to this devise to Shack Flynn, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.
The rule in Shelley’s case is imbedded in the jurisprudence of North Carolina as a well-settled rule of property. Whatever may have been its status prior to that time, it was set at rest by Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1. At that time it was debated, in the minds of some, that the statute, now C. S., 1739, had the effect of abolishing this rule, but this is Uow no longer an open question.
We find a most interesting and learned discussion of this doctrine in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Starnes v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Hampton v. GriggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Nichols v. . GladdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Merchants National Bank v. DortchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Smith v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Lide v. MearsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Benton v. . BaucomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Welch v. . GibsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Whitson v. BarnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Waddell v. . AycockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.