Legal Opinion

Ryan v. . Reynolds

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 25, 1925PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

From an examination of the lease in controversy, made by plaintiff, there is no clause giving him a right of reentry for the nonpayment of rent. The lease is for 5 years with renewal privilege or right for 5 additional years, rent $25.00, payable semiannually in advance. Simmons v. Jarman, 122 N. C., p. 195.

It is laid down in House v. Parker, 181 N. C., 42, and accepted law in this jurisdiction: “It is true the contract contains no express power of sale; but the general laws of the State in force at the time of its execution and performance enter into and become as much a part of the contract…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Graves v. . HowardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. O'Kelly v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
  3. Midimis v. . MurrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Highway Commission v. . VarnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  5. Dunn v. . PatrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Monger v. . LutterlohSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  2. In Re the Guardianship of ReynoldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  3. Steele v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  4. Hood Ex Rel. Bank of Summerfield v. SimpsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Supply Co. v. . Plumbing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

9 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