Legal Opinion

Moore v. . Baker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 24, 1943PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.

Prior to the enactment of chapter 214, sec. 2, of the Public Laws of 1887, 0. S., 3234, cotenants in remainder or reversion bad no right to enforce a compulsory partition of land in which they had such estate.

A tenant in common is entitled to a compulsory partition, and to enable said tenant to maintain a proceeding for such partition he must have an estate in possession, one by virtue of which he is entitled to enjoy the present rents or the possession of the property as one of the cotenants thereof. 40 Am. Jur., sec. 28, p. 22. The possession need not be actual. The actual possession may be…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Baggett v. . JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. Alexander v. . GibbonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  3. Chas. W. Priddy & Co. v. SanderfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Alsbrook v. . ReidSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  5. Baugham v. . Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kayann Properties, Inc. v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. City of South Bay v. ArmstrongDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1966
  3. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  5. Bunting v. CobbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

2 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