Legal Opinion

In Re Estate of Pruden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 2, 1930PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogdeN, J.

The paramount question of law is this: Did Ada Harrell have a vested right in the proceeds of the insurance paid to the administrator of Arthur Pruden by the United States Veterans’ Bureau?

The overwhelming weight of authority, as we interpret the decisions, is to the effect that war risk insurance constitutes a part of the corpus of the estate of the insured. Petition of Robbins, 140 Atlantic, 366; Williams v. Eason, 114 Southern, 338; In re Dean’s Estate, 225 N. Y. S., 543; In re Ogilme’s Estate, 139 Atlantic, 826; McDaniel v. Sloan, 11 S. W. (2d Series), 894; Palmer v. Mitchell, 158 N. E.,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. White v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Singer v. TikalskyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Palmer v. MitchellOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  4. National Union Bank v. McNealSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
  5. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. BrinkleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Singleton v. CheekSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Parker v. . PotterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. Parsons v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. In Re Estate of HallbomSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  5. Mixon v. . MixonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

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

Powered by the Exa API