Legal Opinion
Prentice v. Roberts
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided February 16, 1977No. 7628SC635PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
Plaintiffs assign as error the summary judgment entered for defendants. The question presented by this assignment of error is whether the descriptions of the lot and the easement in the sales agreement and the property sketch are patently or latently ambiguous.
“ . . . The only requisite in evaluating the written contract, as to the certainty of the thing described is that there be no patent ambiguity in the description. There is a patent ambiguity when the terms of the writing leaves the subject of the contract, the land, in a state of absolute uncertainty, and refer to nothing…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kidd v. EarlySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Lane v. CoeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Hensley v. RamseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Borders v. YarbroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- M. E. Gruber, Inc. v. EubankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Allen v. DuvallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- Taylor v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- Singleton v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Tedder v. AlfordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
- Edwards v. HillCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.