Legal Opinion

Sutton v. Quinerly

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 12, 1950No. 382PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

The principal assignments of error fall into two classes: Objections to the interpretation Judge Grady gave to the orders of consolidation as being too broad, thereby “spreading” his conception of the devise in Item 5th of the will, and possibly the effectiveness of the plea of res judicata over all the proceedings so consolidated; and those designed to preserve the contention that appellants are devisees under the will. We do not find it necessary to discuss the first class in detail since it seems clear that if the purpose was only to facilitate the handling of the funds and conserve them…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Graham v. GrahamWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Williams v. . RandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. Holland v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1944
  4. Gordon v. . EhringhausSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. Pilley v. . SullivanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Dobrowolska Ex Rel. Dobrowolska v. WallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. GrubbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  3. Hammer v. HammerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  4. Featherstone v. PassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  5. State v. SummersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

3 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