Legal Opinion

Gold v. Price

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 19, 1975No. 7427SC933PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Judge.

In their first assignment of error defendants contend the trial court erred in holding that testatrix did not create a trust for the maintenance of her grave and Tom Gold’s grave. We find this assignment of error without merit for several reasons. First, as we pointed out in Starling v. Taylor, 1 N.C. App. 287, 290-291, 161 S.E. 2d 204 (1968), “[i]t is well settled in this State that three circumstances must concur in order to constitute a valid trust: (1) sufficient words to raise a trust, (2) a definite subject or trust res, and (3) an ascertained object. [Citations omitted.]”…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Clark v. ConnorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. Dunn v. . HinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Taylor v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  4. Anders v. AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  5. Starling v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Palmer v. KetnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  2. Gold v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. Ruth K. Child v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  4. Ruth K. Child v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976

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

Powered by the Exa API