Legal Opinion

Pure Oil Co. v. Baars

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 8, 1944PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

It is conceded that the right to a jury trial has been preserved and that it should be accorded, unless upon the whole record the plaintiff is entitled to recover in accordance with the ruling below.

The allegations of imposition rest upon the legal effect of naming plaintiff's attorney trustee in the deed of trust, and the significance of the automatic renewal provision in the option to purchase. The defend ants say tbat the trustee is a representative of the plaintiff, which converts the deed of trust into a mortgage as a matter of law, Mills v. B. & L. Asso., 216 N. C., 664, 6 S. E. (2d),…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wooten v. . WaltersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
  2. Starcher Bros. v. DutyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Perry v. Southern Surety Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. Dolan v. LifseyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  5. Mills v. . Building Loan Assn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
  2. Thompson v. SolesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Iglehart v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Florida · 1980
  4. Smith v. MitchellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Cascade Timber Co. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1947

14 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