Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Harris

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 16, 1977No. 7619SC689PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

By assignments of error 1 and 2 based on numerous exceptions duly noted in the record, defendants contend the court erred in admitting the testimony of Allie Nelson and the lawyer who prepared the several deeds. Defendants argue that this testimony violated the parol evidence rule.

In an action to reform a deed for mutual mistake, parol evidence is admissible to prove that due to the mutual mistake of the parties, the deed does not express the actual intent of the parties. Hubbard and Co. v. Horne, 203 N.C. 205, 165 S.E. 347 (1932). “A witness in a position to know may testify…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Durham v. CreechCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  2. M. P. Hubbard & Co. v. HorneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. Yopp v. . AmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Rourk v. Brunswick CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  2. Schulz v. MillerWyoming Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Pullum v. PullumSupreme Court of Alabama · 2010
  4. Wright v. SampsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Lawyers Title Insurance v. Golf Links Development Corp.District Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1999

8 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