Rudisill v. Hoyle
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtMooRE, J.
The record does not disclose that plaintiffs excepted to the judgment sustaining the demurrer ore tenus of defendant Bank. We do not understand that this ruling is prejudicial to defendant Hoyle. So the correctness of that judgment is not before us. However, a brief comment seems appropriate. The complaint does not allege that the Bank ever received or accepted any money or other property pursuant to the purported trust, nor that the Bank as trustee has in its possession or under its control any of the assets of the J. M. Crutch-field estate. Upon the present state of the record it would…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Carroll v. HerringSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Chewning v. . MasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Holland v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
- Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. MearsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Merrill v. . MerrillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lichtenfels v. North Carolina National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Spivey v. GodfreySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Dockery v. HocuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
- Long v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Central Carolina Bank & Trust Company v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.