Legal Opinion

Gilliken v. . Norcom

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 3, 1929PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.

The sole question presented is whether there was sufficient evidence of mental incapacity to be submitted to the jury.

The law recognizes the same standard of mental capacity for testing the validity of both deeds and wills, although it is suggested that perhaps a court would scrutinize a deed more closely than a will. Bond v. Mfg. Co., 140 N. C., 382, 52 S. E., 929. The degree of mental capacity requisite for the valid execution of a deed is thus stated in Lamb v. Perry, 169 N. C., 436, 86 S. E., 179: “A want of adequate mental capacity of itself vitiates the deed, while mere mental weakness…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lamb v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Bond v. Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hayes v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  2. Carland v. . AllisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  3. Priddy v. BLUE BIRD CAB COMPANYCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API