Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Soles

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 5, 1980No. 94PublishedCited by 83 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRITT, Justice.

Plaintiffs contend that the recital in the deed which is set out above operates to prevent defendant from claiming any interest in the three tracts of land which are the subject of this controversy. The Court of Appeals concluded that there was sufficient evidence to enable plaintiffs to go to the jury on the issue of the effect of the recital, and that the trial court erred in entering a directed verdict in defendant’s favor. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we agreed with this conclusion.

When a fact which is recited in a deed is of the essence of the contract and it is…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Boddie v. BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Matthieu v. Piedmont Natural Gas CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. Fort v. . AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
  4. Kerr v. . SandersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  5. Estate of MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923

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

3Cited by83 opinions

  1. J. T. Hobby & Son, Inc. v. Family Homes of Wake County, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. Godley v. County of PittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Brooks v. HackneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  4. Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. CreasySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Goodson v. P. H. Glatfelter Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005

78 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