Nobles v. . Davenport
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, J.
Defendant says there is no sufficient evidence appearing on the record from which the jury could find that the deed from S. H. Davenport to his son was intended as a partial advancement and a partial sale. We think there was some evidence to support the verdict,. In 1905 S. H. Davenport and wife made an advancement to their daughter, Mrs. Dennie Nobles, of a 97-acre tract of land. At the same time they executed a deed, intended as an advancement, to their son, William H. Davenport, for a 102-acre tract of land. This latter deed was never registered; so, on 15 November, 1910, another deed was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harrington v. Rawls.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Gordon v. . CollettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
3Cited by12 opinions
- Reynolds Ex Rel. Cannon v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Robinson v. . McAlhaneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- McGraw v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Winston Brick Manufacturing Co. v. HodginsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Ferrell v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.