Legal Opinion

Hill v. . Street

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 22, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeviN, J.

Tbe material facts, upon wbicb depend tbe rights of tbe parties with respect to tbe property in litigation, sufficiently appear from tbe admissions in tbe pleadings and tbe judgment of tbe court thereon.

Tbe original owner of the property described in tbe complaint, consisting of a bouse and lot in Hendersonville, was Hattie E. Scott. By deed of trust duly recorded in 1921 she conveyed tbe property to a trustee to secure a debt of $3,120.00. Tbe note evidencing tbe debt thus secured was subsequently assigned to W. M. Hill, tbe father and now next friend of tbe infant plaintiffs. On 3 May,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Guy v. . HarmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  2. Beaufort County v. . MayoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  3. McMillan v. Hogan.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  4. Hines v. . WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  5. County of Buncombe v. ArbogastSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Eason v. SpenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Johnston County v. . StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  3. First Properties, L.L.C. v. BennettCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2006
  4. McIver Park, Inc. v. BrinnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. Russell v. . FultonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API