Legal Opinion

Blades v. Spitzer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 23, 1960No. 172PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMooRE, J.

“In all cases where there is a vested interest in real estate, and) a contingent remainder over to persons who are not in being, or when the contingency has not yet happened which will determine who the remaindermen are,” the land may be sold for reinvestment in real estate to be held upon the same contingencies and, pending such reinvestment in land, the proceeds may be loaned or invested in approved securities. G.S. 41-11. Under the provisions of this statute the action for sale authorization is a special proceeding and must be instituted by one having a vested interest. Barnes v. Dortch,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. James v. PretlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Latham v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. White v. MorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  4. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. RasberrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Poole & Blue, Inc. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Black v. State of Mo.District Court, W.D. Missouri · 1980
  2. Hendrix v. AlsopSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  3. Deanes v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Poole v. . ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API