Legal Opinion

Efird v. Efird

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1951No. 527PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeNny, J.

The primary object in interpreting a will is to ascertain what disposition the testator intended to make of his estate. Bank v. Brawley, 231 N.C. 687, 58 S.E. 2d 706; Carroll v. Herring, 180 N.C. 369, 104 S.E. 892. Consequently, the intention of the testator is the polar star that must guide the courts in the interpretation of a will. Buffaloe v. Blalock, 232 N.C. 105, 59 S.E. 2d 625; Elmore v. Austin, 232 N.C. 13, 59 S.E. 2d 205; Cannon v. Cannon, 225 N.C. 611, 36 S.E. 2d 17; Holland v. Smith, 224 N.C. 255, 29 S.E. 2d 888. This intention is to be gathered from a consideration of the will…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Carroll v. HerringSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  4. Cannon v. . CannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Elmore v. AustinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Morris v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  2. Poindexter v. WACHOVIA BANK AND TRUST COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. SchneiderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  4. Wing v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., NASupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Finch v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

12 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