Legal Opinion

Talman v. Dixon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 12, 1960No. 161PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

The contract forming the basis of plaintiff’s cause of action, being incorporated as a part of the complaint, fixed the rights and duties of the parties. Plaintiff’s allegation that defendants had, pursuant to that contract, agreed to convey title to the land was a mere conclusion of law resulting from his interpretation of the contract. It is not an allegation of fact admitted by the demurrer. Sossamon v. Cemetery, Inc., 212 N.C. 535, 193 S.E. 720; Horney v. Mills, 189 N.C. 724, 128 S.E. 324.

Looking at the contract, it is apparent that defendants did not agree to convey the land or a good…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Abernathy v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  2. Bryan v. . EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  3. Coble v. . BarringerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  4. Beaufort Lumber Co. v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  5. Burrell v. DICKSON TRANSFER COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Craig v. KessingCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Harold I. Richardson v. A. T. Van DolahCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  3. Page v. Town of AberdeenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. Langston v. BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API