Legal Opinion

Hemphill v. . Board of Aldermen

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 13, 1937PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaeNhill, J.

Plaintiff became tbe owner of tbe lot described in tbe pleadings 27 January, 1925, under deed wbicb contains tbe following provision: “It is hereby stipulated and set forth that a 10-foot alley is to be reserved at all times for general purposes across tbe south end of this lot, wbicb is to be kept open 10 feet wide, S. 74% E. until it opens into Factory Street.” While there does not seem to be any other record evidence referring to this alley, tbe existence thereof cannot now be denied by plaintiff. Its existence is admitted in bis pleadings.

On 11 July, 1920, tbe plaintiff conveyed to George…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Snowden v. . BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. Milliken v. Denny.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Boyden v. . AchenbachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
  4. Weaver v. . PittsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  5. Kennedy v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. West v. SlickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Chesson v. . JordanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  4. Speight v. . AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Nicholas v. Salisbury Hardware and Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1958

20 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