Legal Opinion

Whetsell v. Jernigan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 4, 1976No. 42PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*130MOORE, Justice.

The sole question for decison is whether a clause in a deed providing for a reverter of title to the grantors is valid and effective when it appears only at the end of the description and is not referred to elsewhere in the deed. The Court of Appeals held that it was not effective. We agree.

In Artis v. Artis, 228 N.C. 754, 47 S.E. 2d 228 (1948), the plaintiff claimed title to certain land under a deed in which the granting clause conveyed a fee simple and the habendum and warranty clauses were in accord. However, following the description in the deed, a clause appeared which…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Triplett v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  2. Starnes v. . HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  3. Rowland v. . RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  4. Bryant v. . ShieldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Artis v. . ArtisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Mims v. MimsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Metcalf v. Black Dog Realty, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Biggers v. EvangelistCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  4. Higdon v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  5. Peele v. Wilson County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

13 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