Sorrell v. . Sorrell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBeogdbN, J.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for the reason that the evidence discloses that the plaintiff is attempting to engraft a parol trust upon an absolute deed in favor of the grantor, and relies upon Gaylord v. Gaylord, 150 N. C., 222, 63 S. E., 1028; Tire Co. v. Lester, 192 N. C., 642, 135 S. E., 778; Waddell v. Aycock, 195 N. C., 268, 142 S. E., 10.
There was neither allegation nor proof of undue influence or actual fraud involved in the transaction. Hence, if the principles announced in the cases referred to, apply, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.
How…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Gaylord v. GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Gaylord v. . GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Atkins v. . WithersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Lummus v. . DavidsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Commissioners of Forsyth v. LashSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Wise v. . RaynorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Wise v. RaynorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- Crew v. CrewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Lewis v. BolingCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- Rauchfuss v. RauchfussCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.