Barco v. . Owens
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Stacy, 0. J.
We agree with the trial court that as the property in question was devised to Annie W. Owens “in fee simple forever” in item two of the will, the conditions subsequent, in so far as they are repugnant to the fee originally devised, must be regarded as unwarranted restrictions on the jus disponendi or the jus dividends, and, therefore, void. Williams v. Sealy, 201 N. C., 372, 160 S. E., 452; Schwren v. Falls, 170 N. C., 251, 87 S. E., 49; Hambright v. Carroll, 204 N. C., 496, 168 S. E., 817; Combs v. Paul, 191 N. C., 789, 133 S. E., 93; Barbee v. Thompson, 194 N. C., 411, 139 S.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Carroll v. HerringSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Wool v. Fleetwood.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Latimer v. . WaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Artis v. . ArtisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Woodard v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Taylor v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- Brinn v. . BrinnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- Humphrey v. FaisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.