Nelson v. Harris
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Durham v. CreechCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
- M. P. Hubbard & Co. v. HorneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Yopp v. . AmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
3Cited by13 opinions
- Rourk v. Brunswick CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Schulz v. MillerWyoming Supreme Court · 1992
- Pullum v. PullumSupreme Court of Alabama · 2010
- Wright v. SampsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 2005
- 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.