Legal Opinion
Daniel v. . Harrison
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 20, 1918PublishedCited by 6 opinions
CONTROVERSY: without action, submitted to Bond, J., at December Term, 1917, of Beaufort. From the judgment rendered defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The purpose of this proceeding is to determine' the title to a tract of land which the plaintiff contracted to sell to. defendant. The defendant declined to accept the deed and to pay the purchase money, alleging that the plaintiff could not convey an estate in fee.
The defendant’s contention is based upon the language in a deed from Elizabeth Robbins to C. M. Daw, constituting a link in plaintiff’s chain of title. The case agreed is as follows:
“The land was conveyed by the said Elizabeth Robbins, by deed dated 3 March, 1909, unto the said O. M. Daw, 'during his natural life, and then to the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Sessoms v. . SessomsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
- Leathers v. . GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- Perry v. HackneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Smith v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Price v. GriffinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hartman v. . FlynnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Radford v. . RoseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Ray v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Ratley v. . OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- Rawls v. . RoebuckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.