Legal Opinion

Burch v. Sutton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 14, 1966No. 371PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

The doctrine of equitable election is in derogation of the property right of the true owner. Hence, the intention to put a beneficiary to an election must appear plainly from the terms of the will. Lamb v. Lamb, 226 N.C. 662, 40 S.E. 2d 29; Bank v. Misenheimer, 211 N.C. 519, 191 S.E. 14; Rich v. Morisey, 149 N.C. 37, 62 S.E. 762; Walston v. College, 258 N.C. 130, 128 S.E. 2d 134. “An election is required only when the will confronts a beneficiary with a choice between two benefits which are inconsistent with each other.” Honeycutt v. Bank, 242 N.C. 734, 89 S.E. 2d 598. An election is required…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Honeycutt v. Citizens National Bank in GastoniaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Lamb v. . LambSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. Commercial National Bank of Charlotte v. MisenheimerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. Rich v. . MoriseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  5. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. BurrusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Olive v. BiggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. Mansour v. RabilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Breece v. BreeceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  4. Lambeth v. FowlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  5. Glover v. SpinksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

1 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