Legal Opinion

Hughes v. . Teaster

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 7, 1932PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The purpose of the suit being to divest the county of its property, or to set aside a conveyance already made to the board of commissioners, it would seem that the grantee in said deed is a necessary party to a complete determination of the rights of those claiming an interest therein. Le Duc v. Brandt, 110 N. C., 289, 14 S. E., 778. Avery County is not a party to the action.

It does not appear from the complaint who the plaintiffs are or what interest they may have in the litigation. It is not alleged that they are taxpayers or residents of Avery County. This is gleaned, if at all, from the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Waddill v. . MastenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. State Ex Rel. Hines v. VannSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  3. Leduc v. . BrandtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Crow v. Citicorp Acceptance Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  2. English v. Holden Beach Realty Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  3. Branch v. Board of Education of Robeson CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  4. Edwards v. Board of Education of Yancey CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  5. Dunn v. State of North CarolinaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006

5 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